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:
SantoCulto said:
Even Einstein was a trully ”genius” no doubt he has been systematically used by (((loved))) ones to spread jewish intellectual supremacism. People start to associate your surname as synonimous of genius.
K said:
They dont need to do that. They have 200 nobel prizes.
Santoculto said:
In the first half of XX century…
And, it’s still doesn’t mean everything specially when nobel is corrupted.
If they don’t need why they did it???
Santoculto said:
Many people here value so much so called intelligence even without wisdom or better benignity that they are relaxed with a pretty intelligent but evil group, and it’s sad. And it’s just like to be a working class white conservative who worship their elites. It’s stupid, sadomasochistic.
ian smith said:
as far as jewish scientists vs gentile scientists go the one trend i know is true.
jews are far more likely to be theoretical scientists.
i had one theoretical chemistry prof who got a D in organic chemistry.
in general organic chemistry is the most goyish part of nat sci.
it also happens to be the most useful.
coincidence?
pumpkinperson said:
Organic chem probably requires more spatial IQ while theoretical work is probably more verbal
ian smith said:
not probably. i’ve already commented that this is the case.
but high VIQ people usually give the impression of being smarter.
and until the last 200 years high VIQ was what people meant by smart.
pumpkinperson said:
and until the last 200 years high VIQ was what people meant by smart.
Huh?
GondwanaMan said:
Makes perfect sense to me. until 200 years ago, the “smart” people were always scribes or maybe merchants. Only with the advances in mechanics like the steam engine did it pay/bring social status to be a tinkerer.
Santoculto said:
He’s confusing with social smarter, yrs, tend to correlates with high verbal… IQ. But there are different types or personal /communal usefulness of verbal intelligence: social (personal or selfish or communal) or analytical. Indeed the second type is more purely verbal than the first that is correlated with social/psychological capacities and skills.
Santoculto said:
Usually the communal socially/verbally smarter has been ostracized since the transmission from small communities to big business.
This contest to see what group is smarter is stupid and “autist” at the best. All them are important. A bunch of non verbal technics dominating the human world would be boring/ lifeless and possibly hypo-moral/emotional. Industrial revolution is a good example. A world with only socially bright seems impossible and Jews is a example of this situation. Obviously to produce concrete or material things people who are more cognitively prone to do that will be brighter than those who are in the other extreme side.
Santoculto said:
Transition **
ian smith said:
there was a great organic chemist who was lebanese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_James_Corey
Philly O' Sopher said:
Most guys that have that picture of einstein wih his tobgue sticking out on his dorm door are socially retarded.
Pumpkin thinks social intelligence doesnt exiat because it isnt on a psychometrics test.
pumpkinperson said:
Pumpkin thinks social intelligence doesnt exiat because it isnt on a psychometrics test.
No, I very much think it exists and it is measured on psychometric tests to some degree, but you lack the social IQ to tell the difference between a genuinely socially dumb person and just a nerdy personality with low T and low psychopathy.
The Philosopher Redux said:
You cant understand there is no difference.
pumpkinperson said:
You can’t understand that there is.
Santoculto said:
To be effectively socially smarter you must need lies and even morally corrupt or condescending with evilness because big business/societies attacks highly ambitious people. It’s designed to worship evil ones as well morally delayed.
The Philosopher Redux said:
I think you can be socially intelligent without being evil. Look at Trump.
GondwanaMan said:
Oh cmon. Maybe Trump isn’t evil but he’s far from being a paragon of virtue.
Santoculto said:
Effectively socially smarter or achieved socially smarter versus theoretically.
Well successful not necessarily understand societies but she or he must understand the rules to be well successful.
Philly O' Sopher said:
Objectively marx is more important than einstein and gates put together. Think about it.
That said einstein was definitely a smart guy. But when you consider von neumann kept worrying about communits hurting him i imagine many of the manhatten set were not concerned with human affaira probably because they couldnt understand it.
pumpkinperson said:
Marx was very important because as much as LOTB denies it, Marx was the grandfather of HBD denial. He argued that one’s station in life is a function of arbitrary economic systems and not the natural order of things. But neither Marx nor Einstein ever took anything equivalent to an IQ test so there’s no scientific proof either man was as intelligent as Gates.
Santoculto said:
I don’t think Marx denied “hbd knowledge”, some autobiographical sources suggest otherwise.
pumpkinperson said:
But he paved the way
GondwanaMan said:
Marx paved the way, but it was Franz Boas and the Frankfurt School that put it in motion (from what I understand).
The Philosopher Redux said:
I would say marx believed in differences among races, but was upset that the treatment of people was inhumane. He was one of the first people to campaign against slavery in the south in the US.
I think marx has said blacks are different to whites in the way we all know.
Santoculto said:
Supposedly but he had a “parasitic – style” life, or worst, a bourgeois one.
Philly O' Sopher said:
Pumpkin also thinks a man living in assisted living and a man who donated all his moey to african r selected barbarians in countries with 60% lifetime rape rates is inteliigent.
Philly O' Sopher said:
What pumpkin is saying is the natural sci people worship einstei and social sci marx. [redacted by pp, aug 6, 2017]
pumpkinperson said:
What pumpkin is saying is the natural sci people worship einstei and social sci marx
Yes, and nat sci people are smarter on average.
The Philosopher Redux said:
True.
But if they ever found a way to measure social intelligence. I think the gap would be disappear.
The brain can’t be good at everything.
Santoculto said:
They are cognitively smarter on avg also because non human world seems relatively and paradoxically easy to understand, more predictable and less existentially or autobiographically biased AND indispensably requires.
Natural science is more useful namely for big social structures that exploit people. But social science is undoubtedly decisively important because it’s the mind and the soul of people. If you control it you can control natural sciences that is subordinated to social science or culture. Maybe in the half of time natural sciences is used even in inadvertent way by scientists and entrepreneurs as tool of distraction, to complement the culture.
Philly O' Sopher said:
I worship neitsche. Only in the sense i worship freedom from mind slavery.
GondwanaMan said:
Where do I start with Nietzsche? I have the Portable Nietzsche by Walter Kaufamann but the cool kids always laugh and call me newb when they see it.
GondwanaMan said:
I think they might be racist tho
The Philosopher Redux said:
What I enjoy about nietsche is his expression and prose. Its actually enjoyable reading him compared to say, Aquinas or Kant.
GondwanaMan said:
Do you read Nietzsche in the original German or something???
Philly O' Sopher said:
I worship neitsche. Only in the sense i worship freedom from mind slavery.
Bruno said:
The controversy on relativity is very old, Lorentz and Poincaré being the principal contenders. It seems that Einstein contribution was to really believe in the Panck theory, and push this discrete approach about things, into the realm of quanta, a move that other physician didn’t want to do because it seems strange to imagine the world being apprehended in discrete equations. To do this, verbal IQ was paramount.
The point wich is not controversial is that Einstein never discredited the image of solitary and genious inventor when in fact, he was really a part of a movement of ideas hold by 4 or 5 people at the same time. He let people give him all the credit. That’s not a proof that he didn’t contribute neither that he stole it. He had just a low gratitude propensity 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute
Click to access 01Einstein.pdf
GondwanaMan said:
Wow interesting.
I had a physics friend in college who claimed that Einstein was a poor mathematician– at least relative to other genius-level physicists. Is that true?
It seems if anything Einstein had to have genius-level math ability (>150) to come up with (or share in) the ideas of relativity…
Santoculto said:
But he forget to advise their yellow broa that he wasn’t only original creator of this theory or “theory”.
Bruno said:
And as for field equations, I read that Hilbert found them 5 days before Einstein, but because he read a paper of Einstein about the subject and was more trained than Einstein in mathematics, so he wrote them down before. But he never disputed that there were Einstein findings. Hilbert was such a genious as was Poincaré. I doubt Einstein had the same capacities as those two.
The Philosopher Redux said:
Einstein seems to be neurobalanced like Ron Unz. Most theoretical physcists are very high V and Q equally which is rare in all academia.
If I had to guess the discipline with high V, Q and S (social), it would probably be finance private equity types. Which makes sense as they control the world.
GondwanaMan said:
I would’ve thought Feynman would’ve been like this, except he got IQ 125 on the one test, and I think he even said himself he wasn’t as good at the humanities.
GondwanaMan said:
humanities meaning literature
GondwanaMan said:
I don’t agree with PP. He seriously believes that most socially intelligent people are like Dr. House– to cool for even the cool kids.
But everyone wants to be one of the cool kids, because that’s how you become successful. And then once you’re successful you can beat up the other cool kids.
GondwanaMan said:
At one time I would’ve said Trump’s social IQ was around 150 but now I’m not so sure…
The Philosopher Redux said:
There was an interesting quote from Teller a guy who knew von neumann and einstein saying von neumann was faster analytically, but couldn’t propose profoundly new ways of doing things or ideas.
Einstein played violent to a good level.
Musical intelligence may be the answer. Pumpkin discounts musical ability because like being able to tell when someone is sarcastic, thats not on an IQ test and so, doesnt exist.
One day someone will find a way to lace it into a test as a proxy for creativity, and pumpkin will turn around and slap the face of the person who says musical intelligence doesnt exist, probably 10 minutes after its added to the test.
I’ve written about it before and its probably one of the more interesting areas of psychometrics because my observation is that musical intelligence is linked to sexual attractiveness more than any of the other types.
GondwanaMan said:
Would this musical genius be considered sexually attractive?
Ruryse said:
“Would this musical genius be considered sexually attractive?”
As long as he remains merely a copycat instead of being an inventor, no.
pumpkinperson said:
Musical intelligence may be the answer. Pumpkin discounts musical ability because like being able to tell when someone is sarcastic, thats not on an IQ test and so, doesnt exist
I don’t discount any cognitive ability. All cognitive abilities are part of intelligence but there are so many cognitive abilities that an IQ test can’t possibly measure them all unless it’s 100 hours long, so they just take a sample of the most important ones.
Music is not that important from a survival perspective. It’s a narrow ability that has limited adaptive value. You can be musically retarded and still have a very successful life. No one ever became a billionaire from musical talent and no one has ever been institutionalized for being tone deaf
GondwanaMan said:
In fact, musical ability may be the least useful of any cognitive ability. It literally has no survival value.
Scott Barry Kaufman did do some interesting research, though, into the correlation between musical ability and sexual attractiveness. I need to find the paper. But the Philosopher is at least partly correct.
theabstractologistblog said:
But mathematics and music are highly correlated in talents.
pumpkinperson said:
But mathematics and music are highly correlated in talents.
Or maybe that’s just a myth musicians tell themselves to feel smart.
GondwanaMan said:
Pumpkin, that’s silly and you know it. I could send you a bunch of links I compiled recently but at this point I’m too lazy. I don’t think it would change your mind.
pumpkinperson said:
I’m sure there’s some correlation between music and math by virtue of the fact that all cognitive abilities load on g. There’s even a positive correlation between math IQ and social IQ, contrary to philosopher’s conjecture about these being almost mutually exclusive.
However I doubt the average rock star is particularly good at math.
Ruryse said:
Musicality (and the creativity-intelligence relationship in general) came up on our forum: http://www.intelligentpeopleforum.com/threads/musical-improvisation-doesnt-require-high-intelligence.50/
Recent studies show that there are differences even in brain processes regarding artistic (f.ex. musical) creativity and scientific creativity. The former kind of creativity will only have a great chance to result in high above average intelligence if the person has a mid to high score of “Openness to experience” (Big 5 personality trait) and also a higher level of Emotional intelligence, resulting in an overall warmer, more empathic personality.
In my opinion, it’s kind of an Asperger’s style high IQ vs. non-Asperger’s style high IQ difference, the latter actually being a much rarer form of existence.
All in all, while musicality and musical (or other kind of artistic) creativity doesn’t seem to be all that important, it’s a good indicator of a certain kind of personality that has the potential to have a high above average general intelligence.
GondwanaMan said:
Joseph Jordania is one of the leading experts on the the role of music in human evolution. I think he posited that vocal music (along with dancing and body art/tattoos) played an early role in human evolution by coordinating hunting and warfare behaviors, but this role eventually died out (mostly, although the martial aspect of music exists today).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Jordania
gypsymanangelo said:
“No one ever became a billionaire from musical talent”
Please don’t tell me you’re being serious. Andrew Lloyd Webber literally is. And there are many super-influential millionaires besides.
Musical talent makes and breaks fortunes every day.
pumpkinperson said:
I could be wrong, but I don’t recall Webber ever making Forbes international billionaire list, which is the gold standard for wealth valuations. Yes musical talent makes and breaks fortunes everyday, but not nearly as often as verbal or math talent does. Why do you think parents discourage their kids from being musicians and tell them to study something practical like law or medicine? Because music has less market value unless you’re really exceptional.
Put another way, if traveling to an unknown environment, verbal IQ is useful so you can learn the language, spatial IQ is useful so you can find your way around and build shelter and weapons, math IQ is useful so you can think logically and see patterns, social IQ is useful so you can form alliances, memory IQ is useful so you can remember what you learn there, but music IQ? It may help you reproduce, but it wont help you survive (unless it’s really high), which is why I suspect more r selected tropical populations are good at music.
Perhaps music IQ might help you make friends (playing the guitar around the camp fire) but only if you have the spatial IQ to make the guitar in the first place. 🙂
Santoculto said:
None become millionaire via musical talent
Am????????????
To birds musical talent is essential to successful procreation.
Yea, music is still a narrow potentiality but I don’t think IQ measure the most important aspects of intelligence: creativity, rationality, for example. IQ measure the basal features of our intelligence that are cultural products as language and mathematics (numerical language) as well other less culturally required or crystalized features as digit span.
So
The capacity to learn words and its meaning is essentially dependent on environmental pr cultural exposure while to be creative seems you don’t need to be even a vocabulary but of course words is extremely important to help us to improve our understanding of “the world”, just like q huge facilitation.
GondwanaMan said:
Michael Jackson was very close to billionaire staus, at least when he had the Beatles catalogue.
pumpkinperson said:
When he was alive he wanted desperately for people to think he was a billionaire but now that he’s dead, his estate is trying desperately to convince the IRS he was almost broke.
His assets may have been worth 10 figures but he had hundreds of millions in debt
gypsymanangelo said:
>Yes musical talent makes and breaks fortunes everyday, but not nearly as often as verbal or math talent does.
That’s crap, it’ll take you longer to rise up in the world through the systematic use of those talents in the highly-competitive world of business or academia than it will to show out on a decently large forum and then snowball your brand and brand-awareness into an institution.
The speed that you can make your millions in Music is unparalleled, the problem, and the reason why doing so is discouraged is that it’s a massive gamble and if you don’t have the goods (A consumer-friendly and also groundbreaking, unique sound) you’re bust.
But if you break that threshhold you’ll be a millionaire in your twenties, probably many times over. Compare that to even the most well-paid of ordinary professions, like investment banking, medicine, stockbroker and they invariably come up short against it.
gypsymanangelo said:
Parents don’t want their kids to gamble, either.
Music, like anything worth doing is a massive risk.
You gotta have the balls to put next to your brains.
gypsymanangelo said:
To clarify, it’s not that you’re wrong in what you say, but clearly it takes longer to become successful in business and build a successful portfolio than it does to become rich through music.
pumpkinperson said:
But music is business. You can’t get super rich in any field without some business sense.
My point is I don’t think musical ability predicts income as well as math, verbal or social IQ, even holding general intelligence, personality and looks constant.
Obviously there are some people who get rich fast and young off of music IQ, though it’s usually their looks that are equally responsible, but there are even more who get even richer off math IQ (all those twenty something high tech gazillionaires and investment bankers)
GondwanaMan said:
I agree. Success in music (particularly commercial/popular music) is more about visual performance and looks than musical ability itself.
It seems music IQ really is worthless.
Ruryse said:
Keith Jarrett jazz pianist reportedly has a genius range IQ.
SantoCulto said:
”It seems music IQ really is worthless.”
No comment for it…
GondwanaMan said:
i wouldn’t be surprised about Keith Jarrett. probably the greatest living keyboardist (regardless of genre)
gypsymanangelo said:
>But music is business. You can’t get super rich in any field without some business sense.
So? You can be rich in the music business with no more than average business sense.
>My point is I don’t think musical ability predicts income as well as math, verbal or social IQ
I’m not disputing that, but you can make your fortune much more quickly and explosively through music.
>But there are even more who get even richer off math IQ
It’s harder to get into that business.
pumpkinperson said:
So? You can be rich in the music business with no more than average business sense.
You can get rich using math or verbal IQ with no more than average business sense too. Most rich people aren’t the the top business minds, but they have a talent in one area (computers, law, etc) and then enough business sense to exploit it financially (or hire people who can)
As for getting rich fast & explosively in music, i would need to see stats, but if the ones who get musically rich are so rare, it proves little.
And they’re not getting as rich as they used to since the Internet made buying music redundant. Another Darwinian example of music geniuses being dominated and exploited by geniuses in other domains. Some of the greatest musicians died broke while others got rich off their work
When school budgets get strict, art and music are always the first to be cut because it’s considered less important. As a kid i knew a girl would complain that she was smart at the stuff that didn’t count (music and art) and the gifted East Asian students would laugh and point at the musically gifted kids, thinking they were going nowhere in life
gypsymanangelo said:
Starting to sound like you’ve got a private axe to grind against the sexy skills, PP.
And your intuition should tell you that if your record goes platinum, a rock band full of twenty year olds will make their millions. And that shit’s pretty explosive. Not to mention the soft power of a musician, more people hear from and arguably respect Beyonce than Bill Gates. You can chew my ear off about whether they OUGHT to all day, but ultimately they do.
My point is that music is more accessible, and can result in more immediate and dramatic changes of fortunes than other fields, even if it entails greater risk. Your point, even if you don’t see it, is that if you shoot for the moon in computer science you’ll land amongst the stars, but that just means that the risk (if you have the skills to enter it in the first place) is lesser, but while the risk is lesser the opportunity for becoming the next Zuck is also much much lesser due to all of the other participants in this game who’re just as able and competitive as you and who like the limited risk-factor. Contrast this to music, most bands will never even take the risk for the big time because of how huge that risk is, leaving an opportunity for those that’ll take it. If you shoot for the moon in music, you’ll either be Neil Armstrong or the Man who fell to Earth.
pumpkinperson said:
Starting to sound like you’ve got a private axe to grind against the sexy skills, PP.
I just think they’re phonies. Rock stars pretend there these rebellious rule breaking counter-culture warriors, but they seldom say anything truly brave. Yet teenagers and people like Philosopher are fooled by their long hair and tattoos into thinking they’re bad boys when in reality they’re generally no more edgy than Warren Buffett. If they truly challenged the power structure in a meaningful way their empires would crumble overnight. If anything they’ve moved the culture in the direction the exact opposite of what Philosopher wants.
And your intuition should tell you that if your record goes platinum, a rock band full of twenty year olds will make their millions.
So will an app some 20-year-old nerd designs for your iphone. That’s pretty accessible too. Anyone with talent can design an app. I guess my question is if there’s so much explosive financial opportunity in music, why are there hundreds of people who’ve become billionaires in high tech and zero who’ve become billionaires in music?
And that shit’s pretty explosive. Not to mention the soft power of a musician, more people hear from and arguably respect Beyonce than Bill Gates.
Beyoncé’s soft power is greatly overrated. She and Jay Z campaigned for Hillary Clinton and minority turnout for Hillary was so low she lost the election. If you look at Gallup’s poll of the most admired men and women in the world, Gates is in the top five for men, while Beyoncé doesn’t even make the top ten for women (despite there being much less competition to be an admired woman). Of course in fairness, Gates had to buy his popularity by giving billions to Africa, but the fact that he could is part of his power.
gypsymanangelo said:
>bad boys when in reality they’re generally no more edgy than Warren Buffett
As judged by you? I don’t think you’re the person to make that call. You have a personal axe to grind.
>That’s pretty accessible too
Not even close to the accessibility or popularity of music.
>why are there hundreds of people who’ve become billionaires in high tech and zero who’ve become billionaires in music?
Because the average person who makes their money in tech is probably smarter than the average person who makes their money in the music industry? On top of that there are many more people entering silicon valley because it entails less risk, very few people buy all of the equipment necessary to regularly gig for example because of the odds against being sighted by a talent scout.
As for the metrics you’re using for soft power, those are probably subject to sample bias, with a particular type more liable to respond. If you were being honest you’d realize that more young women respond to Beyonce than Gates or even Hillary.
pumpkinperson said:
Not even close to the accessibility or popularity of music.
You can create an app from your bedroom. No special equipment required.
why are there hundreds of people who’ve become billionaires in high tech and zero who’ve become billionaires in music?
Because the average person who makes their money in tech is probably smarter than the average person who makes their money in the music industry?
They also tend to be more nerdy and socially awkward, so it arguably cancels out.
On top of that there are many more people entering silicon valley because it entails less risk,
And entails less risk because there’s more of a market for it and there’s more of a market because it’s intrinsically more useful which I don’t think you’d deny.
As for the metrics you’re using for soft power, those are probably subject to sample bias, with a particular type more liable to respond.
Gallup is a scientific poll and the most respected one there is. They carefully match poll respondent characteristics with census demographics to get a representative sample of the U.S. population. Beyoncé might be extremely admired among particular subgroups, especially black teenaged girls perhaps, but among American ADULTS as a whole, she’s not even a blip on the radar screen. Remember that America’s so big that to be a successful entertainer, you only need to be popular with about 0.5% of the population.
Even if the Gallup poll is a poor metric for popularity and Beyoncé does have the soft power you think she has, you also have to remember that high tech people also have a lot of power in addition to all the money they make. Google has enormous power to swing elections just by the type of search results they display about different politicians and people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have had a profound impact on society.
SantoCulto said:
PP is right that music AND ENTERTAINMENT is OVER-VALUED…..
included some entertainers…
Between them and Gates, i still prefer the late, ;))
gypsymanangelo said:
It’s not even about who we prefer, the reality is that Beyonce spends more time in the average young girl’s head than Bill Gates does, and my suspicion is that Snoop Dogg spends more time in the average guys, and if people answered polls like that more honestly you’d find they’d probably say that the person that inspired them most on a personal level is a musician, a lyric they heard when they were a kid or something like that.
gypsymanangelo said:
>You can create an app from your bedroom. No special equipment required.
And you can create the theory of relativity under the same conditions. Skills and talent are a bar to accessibility as much as material costs.
>They also tend to be more nerdy and socially awkward, so it arguably cancels out.
No, it just doesn’t. Being sexy as shit doesn’t give you the smarts to create an investment portfolio, or several small business ventures.
>And entails less risk because there’s more of a market for it and there’s more of a market because it’s intrinsically more useful which I don’t think you’d deny.
Who gives a shit if it’s more useful? That might be your subjective assessment as to why one product is “Better” than the other, but that’s 100% irrelevant.
>Beyoncé might be extremely admired among particular subgroups, especially black teenaged girls perhaps, but among American ADULTS as a whole, she’s not even a blip on the radar screen.
Black women and teenaged girls are some of America’s biggest spenders, those are demographics you want on your side. Besides that fact when responding to a poll about someone you “Admire” you’re going to answer with the Bill Gates because he’s smart and it makes you feel smart by association to respect his achievements, but he spends less time in your head giving you ideas than pop musicians do.
>you also have to remember that high tech people also have a lot of power in addition to all the money they make
Nah, that’s crap. People respect Bill Gate’s intelligence sure, but musicians spend more time on your radio, your TV and your advertising than any techie.
>Google has enormous power to swing elections just by the type of search results they display about different politicians
Google might have massive control of information, but that’s not even soft power. And while your information-line is being choked out you’re not thinking to yourself how clever the people that run it are for being able to do so.
You can argue with me all day, but actors, musicians, and TV pundits have a bigger effect on most peoples everyday lives, because they spend more time in your face.
pumpkinperson said:
And you can create the theory of relativity under the same conditions. Skills and talent are a bar to accessibility as much as material costs.
But making music requires talent too.
No, it just doesn’t. Being sexy as shit doesn’t give you the smarts to create an investment portfolio, or several small business ventures.
No, but it opens doors and helps you make all kinds of connections.
Who gives a shit if it’s more useful? That might be your subjective assessment as to why one product is “Better” than the other, but that’s 100% irrelevant.
Originally this discussion was about why music talent is not measured by IQ tests. I suggested that because it’s impossible for IQ tests to measure all cognitive abilities, they just take a sample of the most important ones, and music is not among those.
Black women and teenaged girls are some of America’s biggest spenders, those are demographics you want on your side.
Middle aged people spend the most money, though people 18 to 25 are highly valued by advertisers because their brand preferences are still pliable.
Besides that fact when responding to a poll about someone you “Admire” you’re going to answer with the Bill Gates because he’s smart and it makes you feel smart by association to respect his achievements, but he spends less time in your head giving you ideas than pop musicians do.
If Beyoncé spends so much time in so many heads, you’d expect more than 1% to think of her when asked by a pollster to name any woman in the World that they admire above all others. And if they’re too embarrassed to mention Beyoncé to an anonymous pollster, then they’re too embarrassed to spread her influence in general which limits her soft power.
Having said that however, I did find some evidence in support of your argument. Back in 2005 there was a television election of the Greatest Americans of all time (every week people would vote by phone or internet) until they narrowed it down to the top 25, then top 10, so people had a lot more time to think (though the poll was not scientific). The top ten did include a music star (Elvis) but no techies:
1 Ronald Reagan
2 Abraham Lincoln
3 Martin Luther King
4 George Washington
5 Benjamin Franklin
6 George W Bush
7 Bill Clinton
8 Elvis Presley
9 Oprah Winfrey
10 Franklin D Roosevelt
Google might have massive control of information, but that’s not even soft power.
It’s more powerful than soft power in many cases. If Google decides they don’t like Beyoncé all they have to do is make sure negative Beyoncé stories dominate the headlines or they divert Beyoncé fan attention to rival singers like Rhianna and by the time anyone catches on, the damage will be done. Google has far more power than Beyoncé because BILLIONS of people use Google everyday. Most people only hear from Beyoncé once a week if one her songs happens to be playing on the radio or she’s mentioned on some celebrity gossip show.
And while your information-line is being choked out you’re not thinking to yourself how clever the people that run it are for being able to do so.
But that can be a good thing for techies because it allows them to yield power in secret, since no one is thinking of them. The problem celebs have is they’re so visible that every time they get political, they suffer a backlash which tends to keep them on a very short leash.
gypsymanangelo said:
>But making music requires talent too.
A distinctly more common and accessible talent. It doesn’t take much to listen to music, know that you like it and are moved by it, and go from there into making it yourself. Most popular rock musicians can’t even read sheet music, take Jimi Hendrix for example, so the skill bar is set much, much lower.
>No, but it opens doors and helps you make all kinds of connections.
Not the kind that’ll help make the successful portfolio that’ll flip your fortunes into the billions, much more likely the kind that’ll sychophantically follow you all the while leeching off your existing millions.
>Originally this discussion was about why music talent is not measured by IQ tests.
I don’t care whether or not it is, I’m more concerned with the absurdity of saying that music talent isn’t finanically rewarding.
>And if they’re too embarrassed to mention Beyoncé to an anonymous pollster, then they’re too embarrassed to spread her influence in general which limits her soft power.
No, they’re not. They’re not to embarrassed to sing her songs, go to parties where she’s played on a loop, go to her concerts, tell their friends that her new album is “like, so totally fire”.
>It’s more powerful than soft power in many cases. If Google decides they don’t like Beyoncé all they have to do is make sure negative Beyoncé stories dominate the headlines
But until they decide to do that (They won’t) Beyonce’s face will still stay in yours, hanging there on the television screen like a star in the night sky. The whole ridiculous idea you have of a possible vulgar display of power is so unlikely it’s ridiculous to even suppose. Beyonce will stay famous until she says something right-wing.
>since no one is thinking of them
And that’s why they’ll never be popular.
Under ordinary circumstances, celebrities mean more to the average person than a nameless techie, or even a named one.
And you’ve all but conceded that already.
pumpkinperson said:
Most popular rock musicians can’t even read sheet music,
That doesn’t mean they lack talent.
Not the kind that’ll help make the successful portfolio that’ll flip your fortunes into the billions, much more likely the kind that’ll sychophantically follow you all the while leeching off your existing millions.
A lot of people would argue that outgoing socially skilled behavior is extremely important in business. Even people as nerdy as Bill Gates started their business with close friends.
I don’t care whether or not it is, I’m more concerned with the absurdity of saying that music talent isn’t finanically rewarding.
Compared to the specific talents directly measured by IQ tests it doesn’t appear to be. Being verbally, mathematically or spatially challenged is a major disability. Being tone dead is not. If your only goal in life was to be rich, you’d probably rather be gifted in verbal, math or spatial ability than musical ability holding all other traits constant including looks, personality, risk taking, interests, social skills and general intelligence. Of course I can’t prove that without doing a massive study predicting income from all the above traits independently of one another, but the fact that so few people even make a living, let alone get super rich off musical talent is circumstantial evidence in my opinion.
But until they decide to do that (They won’t) Beyonce’s face will still stay in yours, hanging there on the television screen like a star in the night sky.
And until Beyoncé decides to use her star power for a cause greater than herself, she’ll continue to be irrelevant.
And that’s why they’ll never be popular.
Popularity is only one form of power.
Under ordinary circumstances, celebrities mean more to the average person than a nameless techie, or even a named one.
They may mean more but that doesn’t mean they have more impact. Fame != influence.
Anyway, I’ll let you have the last word.
ian smith said:
that list is bullshit. OBVIOUSLY.
oprah’s on the list only because peepee voted for her 500,000 times.
henry ford?
thomas edison?
where’s jefferson davis?
pumpkinperson said:
Oprah’s always in the top ten on popularity polls, including scientific ones.
pumpkinperson said:
You can see the entire top 100 here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_American
gypsymanangelo said:
>That doesn’t mean they lack talent.
There’s still a skill-gap between having the programming skillset to create an app and picking up a guitar and learning a few chords, aside from that fact one is a more enjoyable process than the other. You can begin writing campfire songs to pick up chicks the moment you learn your first three chords.
>A lot of people would argue that outgoing socially skilled behavior is extremely important in business. Even people as nerdy as Bill Gates started their business with close friends.
I refer you to my previous answer, it may well be important to be outgoing, and that’s why I’m convinced over time, as the techie’s era passes and their controlling shares are dispersed against many many more people it’s the more traditional business minds that’ll resume control of the forbes list.
>Compared to the specific talents directly measured by IQ tests it doesn’t appear to be. Being verbally, mathematically or spatially challenged is a major disability. Being tone dead is not.
I’m not necessarily challenging that. That being said, it comes down to the fact that those other factors control for risk in the world more than musicality does, verbal controls for the risk of being unable to make head or tails of the world, whereas musicality controls for little risk.
Put it this way, it won’t save your life, but it might make you a millionaire.
>And until Beyoncé decides to use her star power for a cause greater than herself, she’ll continue to be irrelevant.
In your eyes. The world does not revolve around your Pumpkin Patch, Pumpkin Person.
>Popularity is only one form of power.
The most significant in ordinary life. Never under-estimate the power of face time.
>They may mean more but that doesn’t mean they have more impact. Fame != influence.
Even Oprah’s an argument against this. In the ordinary world, people who work in media, who spend time on your TV, have more influence over your personal life.
Yes, there are extra-ordinary examples such as google being able to control what you see and what you hear, but this is a form of power that, though clever, is something you don’t think about often and doesn’t have that much impact on your imagination.
Incidentally, Huey Lewis had a perfect 800 Math SAT, and yet he’s one of the poorer popular musicians.
GondwanaMan said:
I’ve been amazed at some people’s abilities to instantly recognize chord progressions or hear notes in chords. Watch this kid, this is some next-level musical IQ:
He’s able play complex cluster chords (like shit you might hear in Impresisonistic music, or even atonal Schoenberg stuff), and hear every note.
I practiced this for a few months and never got anywhere close to this level.
The Cis-'Gender' Philosopher said:
I see comments from professional classical musicians saying that if you can hear the melody in this piece you would tend to have a high musical iq. Haha, I don’t know if thats backslapping, but when I first heard this I went to the moon. Especially, 1.30 on.
Its what hes doing with his left hand during the flurry that is brilliant. Debussy sometimes does that as well. I don’t know the language or terms to describe it as I never studied music, but when a musician can ‘jarr’ chords in like that, usually the guy is very sophisticated.
He does it as 3.03 here. I would have made keyed the bass note an octave down after hitting them when he double taps the second time. I think it would sound better.
The Cis-'Gender' Philosopher said:
It should feel like the kick you get from a strong whisky those tonic notes to use a pun.
The Cis-'Gender' Philosopher said:
I notice blacks actually like classical music when its played to them. In london in some subway tops you have classical musicians playing piano and blacks will stop to listen no matter their socio-ec background. High music IQ is why.
GondwanaMan said:
Those are great pieces. I’ve been developing a greater appreciation for Scriabin over the past few years. Late-Romantic/Impressionistic/early modern music is usually my favorite. The types of harmonies (like the kind used here) are my favorite. I like Bach too though.
Blacks are usually indifferent to classical music. I think Linda Gotffredson said appreciation of classical music is one of the best indicators if someone has a triple-digit IQ. Audacious Epigone even had an article on that.
On the flip side, I knew a lot blacks growing up in the South who loved country music. Mostly guys who had “white” hobbies (hunting, construction workers with pick-up trucks, watching college football, redneck type shit). Very few black people like rock though. I was at a restaurant a few years ago and a bunch of 30-something black guys started causing a ruckus when Austin City Limits came on a TV. “What the fuck is this shit?”, one guy said. Eventually the manager had to come out and change the channel.
The Philosopher Redux said:
Genius is a function of novelty as well more than processing power. In fact probably more so about novelty.
The Philosopher Redux said:
Pumpkins theory on brain size is spectacularly wrong.
Its physiology and efficiency of oxygen replacement along with the dendrite receptivity and such.
Its just like testosterone. Asians have higher free T, but blacks androgen receptors multiply anabolise it to mean 3X more potency. I had a great paper on that.
pumpkinperson said:
Humans are the smartest animal and have the largest brains relative to body size by far. Brain size tripled as humans evolved from apes.
There’s obviously a very clear causal relation between brain size and intelligence. Only an idiot could deny this
It’s not the only factor of course. Brain size is to IQ as height is to weight. One cause out of many
The Philosopher Redux said:
Notice the way todays mathematicians are more ‘nerdy’ than the mathematicians of the 50s and 60s. Terry Tao doesn’t look like he would spot a crook. But einstein would.
This may be because gentile/asian high quant people are aspergers while jew high quant people usually have V to stop them looking at door handles all day.
GondwanaMan said:
The smartest people I knew in high school had an awkward physical gait and posture that reminded me of the retarded special ed kids. This seemed to be less prevalent when I was in college.
I always wondered about this.
GondwanaMan said:
I’m willing to bet posture/gait correlate with gross motor control and physical self-awareness/impression management.
pumpkinperson said:
Terry Tao doesn’t look like he would spot a crook. But einstein would.
Perhaps because he was one 🙂
GondwanaMan said:
Einstein’s smaller than expected brain size I expect can be partially explained by his Jewishness. Doesn’t Jew brain structure allow them to have a higher IQ with smaller brains? Or VIQ doesn’t require as much brain capacity…
theabstractologistblog said:
Yeah, I found a paper by Dr John Lorber in the Archive of Child Illnesses (1970s version), it told of people with little to no neopallium with very high IQs because they were ultra efficient. One even double majored and graduated with honors in Econs and Comp Sci.
pumpkinperson said:
And there are people with very little height who weight over 300 lbs. But generally speaking, the taller you are the heavier you are, just like generally speaking, the bigger the brain, the greater the IQ.
Santoculto said:
But the correlation between brain size and IQ is lower isn’t?
So people with bigger brains but not high IQ scores seems the most interesting. If they are not IQ-smarter maybe they can be smarter in other ways?? Remember that many brains have asymmetric development and seems the overall efficiency that tend to be predicted by IQ, so called G. In the case of Einstein, he had some parts of his brain over-developed than others, how great this SPECIFIC size is if compared with control people seems important two. Maybe you don’t need to have a overall bigger brain to: score pretty high in some sub-tests or to have genuine talents and this still prove that brain size, overall or specific, really express physically higher potentialities or potentiality.
pumpkinperson said:
Doesn’t Jew brain structure allow them to have a higher IQ with smaller brains?
Possibly. Or it could be that the high Jewish IQ is more cultural than genetic. Of all the racial differences in HBD, I think the Jew > gentile gap is the least likely to be mostly genetic, mostly because there’s been so little time for a group difference to evolve and the genetic and biological difference between Jews and Gentiles seems small. Philosopher is going to go ballistic when he reads this, as he absolutely worships Jewish intellect.
Philly O' Sopher said:
Cousin marriage pumpkin.
[redacted by pp, aug 7, 2017]
Santoculto said:
How high IQ can be more cultural than genetic and for one but not for other groups??
pumpkinperson said:
Because jews have a very intellectual culture where intellectualism is valued above all else.
Santoculto said:
And how this make Jews increased their vernal intelligence? It’ not already a product or effect of this higher verbal intelligence??
I read somewhere and already posted here a study showing that differences between verb and quant among Jewish children is lower but when they grow the difference become bigger but i can be a common pattern among people with verbal tilt regardless their ethnic backgrounds.
GondwanaMan said:
This is a difficult response for me because I’m agreeing more and more with the Philosopher. It’s hard to separate personality and intelligence, contra PP. Theoretically they’re separate. But in reality I’m not so sure they are.
Given that Jewish culture is likely itself genetic (given that everything is at least partially correlated with genes), even if Jewish intelligence is being “artificially” inflated by what you called culture, the intelligence is still the result of genes.
Moreover, culture is just a result of the collective interaction of personalities and preferences. So it seems the Jewish personality itself is more “intellectual” (or open??) And maybe this genetically-determined “Jewish-personality” partly mediates the higher Jewish verbal IQ.
I don’t know. It’s possible… Even on non-culture tests (like working memory and processing speed) personality variables like conscientiousness and neuroticism seem to influence scores.
GondwanaMan said:
Intelligence is personality and personality is intelligence. It’s a well known that psychopaths (those with very elevated levels of the Honesty-humility personality trait) tend to have better than average “cognitive” empathy. In other words, psychopathy seems to be causal to elevated levels of a certain type of empathy. Of course, on the flip-side they’re deficient in affective empathy.
SantoCulto said:
”It’s a well known that psychopaths (those with very elevated levels of the Honesty-humility personality trait)”
Honest and humble psychopaths****
Psychopaths are natural social scientists, in the literal and or real meaning. What scientists do in academia, psychopaths do/apply in real life.
In school or in workplace, intelligence is ”just cognitive ability”, even in this places, the psychological side is also required.
GondwanaMan said:
fuck, actually I meant “very low” levels of Honesty-Humility. Psychopathy is the opposite of Honesty-humility, duh
GondwanaMan said:
i wish i could edit my comments
The Philosopher Redux said:
Heres einstein talking.
theabstractologistblog said:
Actually, high V is very much needed in some areas of mathematics however it is possible to specialize in concrete quantitative fields. Mochizuki’s work is an example.
theabstractologistblog said:
Actually, V IQ is just as needed in higher mathematics being the crux of abstraction. Narrative thinking is very highly needed but it is possible to specialize in concrete things.
I think that much of academia today is a joke of ad-hoc speculation and trivial proofs. They run a circle-jerk and pat themselves on the back very soon people will realize the modern intelligentsia is full of shit and radicals are being called crack pots by careerist functionaries who claim that two theories are successful that don’t fit conceptually being relativity and Newtonian physics because the equations work.
gypsymanangelo said:
Tall forehead, brain’s big where it matters most.
But that’s besides the point because the greater factor is better integration between different parts of the brain and I suspect that Einstein’s brain was highly interconnected and thus quick to process information.
K said:
I think a ‘big’ brain is more connected to ‘multi-tasking’ and ‘memory’ (esp working memory). I had a friend who had a head that was atleast 25% larger than mine and most of my friends. And he was a supremely good multi-tasker and had one of the best working memory….better than all of us.
Santoculto said:
Or as in the case of Temple Grandin ….even I have a impression that she has only one “brilliant” insight.
K said:
PP,
I think jews have higher iq’s than others in-spite of smaller brains is because they have less ‘useless intelligence’. For eg: High visio-spatial intelligence isnt really required unless one wants to major in organic chemistry, read maps or become a fighter pilot. And the evolution of jewish intelligence (there is a 2005 article from cochran or somebody about how jews evolved high IQ) implies that they were selected more towards verbal/mathematical/logical/social intelligence. And i am assuming their visio-spatial IQ fell as a result. Also jews are weaker at memory (i read). And there are many neurons in the brain for memory. Hence maybe the smaller brains i assume. Yet more IQ.
Santoculto said:
Where you read they are on avg weaker on memory?? On autobiographical memory?
Maybe it’s a trend on elite circles have a higher verbal but not spatial IQ.
GondwanaMan said:
I think Jewish working memory is similar to gentile whites’. Not spectacular like their verbal comprehension.
Philly O' Sopher said:
Einsteins genous was that he was genuinely neurobalanced between v, q and as i mentioned above musical.
In the same way regurgutating a dictionary is proxy for v, composition is for musical. But i bet musical means more . As i have saud, intelligence is a part of personality. The reason why people adept at music do well with women i sprobably because theres a whole suite of personality that comes with it.
meLo said:
Brains shrink as they age, I don’t know whether any autopsy revealed if his brain was smaller relative to other elderly people. Albert einstein also had more glial cells and more efficient connections within the brain, so obviously his size was an independent factor. His theory was vindicated by Lorentz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_brain#Stronger_connection_between_brain_hemispheres
On another note, Music and math are factually correlated. Music has no real survival value, but it is still an expression of mathematical symmetry. Wind and string instruments are more complex than drums.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_mathematics#Connections_to_Mathematics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory_(music)
pumpkinperson said:
Even for his age his brain was kind of small, but he had a big head so his brain was probably big for his age when he was young which is what matters most
I don’t question the validity of his theory, i question whether it was his (see Bruno’s comments)
meLo said:
“I don’t question the validity of his theory, i question whether it was his”
I’m pretty sure he made it. While I have heard that Einstein had a relatively lower math skill than other geniuses of his time, Ive also heard the he made up for it in his incredibly gifted visuo-spatial areas. i don’t remember where but i think I remember a quote about him claiming he had to envision what it was like to move at the speed of light as a photon. What I meant by him being vindicated by lorentz was that lorentz admitted it was einstein’s theory. Just about everyone but hilbert had no qualms over the theory’s Authorship.
His head being smaller as well as having more glial cell, and more efficient brain connections would have made his overall cognitive ability amplified, if his head had been bigger it would have unfortunately made the impact of extra brain cells less significant.
“Music and math don’t seem correlated at the racial level.”
It kind of is. Instrumental music is more mathematical than lyric focused genres(like rap) Jazz is pretty mathematical but when you think about it whites have created the most complex musical instrumentals while blacks are mostly just good at ‘flowing” this comes from increased ability in rhythm and body kinesthetics.
I think asians have more mathematical music.
Truthteller said:
I’m pretty sure he made it. While I have heard that Einstein had a relatively lower math skill than other geniuses of his time, Ive also heard the he made up for it in his incredibly gifted visuo-spatial areas.
http://www.nature.com/news/snapshots-explore-einstein-s-unusual-brain-1.11836
A study done in 1985 showed that two parts of his brain contained an unusually large number of non-neuronal cells called glia for every neuron. And one published more than a decade later showed that the parietal lobe lacks a furrow and a structure called the operculum3. The missing furrow may have enhanced the connections in this region, which is thought to be involved in visuo-spatial functions and mathematical skills such as arithmetic.
pumpkinperson said:
Music and math don’t seem correlated at the racial level. Or maybe it’s only classical type music that’s math loaded
GondwanaMan said:
Sight-reading, I’m sure, correlates strongly with working memory.
GondwanaMan said:
Classical music correlates highly with math IQ . Other genres, probably not so much.
name redacted by pp, aug 7, 2017 said:
Species Brain:body
mass ratio (E:S)[4]
small ants 1:7[8]
tree shrew 1:10
small birds 1:14
mouse 1:40
human 1:50
pumpkinperson said:
You’re confusing brain size/body size ratio with brain size/expected brain size for body size ratio
Name redacted by pp, aug 7, 2017 said:
i’m not confusing. you’re LYING.
as USUAL.
Humans are the smartest animal and have the largest brains relative to body size by far.
pumpkinperson said:
It’s not a lie dummkopf. Relative to body size doesn’t have to mean as a percentage of body size. Controlling for body size we have by far the largest brain, meaning our brains are some seven times as big as expected for a mammal our size
ian smith said:
elative to body size doesn’t have to mean as a percentage of body size.
of course it does. only a retard would think there is any other conceivable meaning. the encephilization quotient is arbitrary and subjective. it’s jive, just like flushtonism and densenism.
if the EQ took into account dinosaurs then whales and elephants would have larger EQs than humans.
duhh!
sad!
pumpkinperson said:
No you’re too dumb to understand
There’s a correlation between brain size and body size among all living mammals. The human brain is seven times bigger than expected based on said correlation
Nothing arbitrary about it. Very straitforward and obvious to biologists who as a group average above 127 wechsler IQ
Santoculto said:
Ian,
The comparison with whales and other big living beings is very “sjw-like” comment. I thought PP want to say humans have unexpected bigger brains to their bodies, but I agree that if it was really the case so encephalization quotient would show this differences. I disagree that encephalization quotient is arbitrary, why?? What is arbitrary for you?? It’s just other WA to compare variables among different groups and nothing more or less.
Humans may have the bigger brains and encephalization quotient if they are compared with other mammals, specially those who are near in th evolutionary scale. Compare this ratio among different species seems stupid. In the end would be interesting compare this ratio within species to see if the bigger brains of each species are the smartest ones.
Truthteller said:
PP is right, Mugabe doesn’t understand how it work.
pumpkinperson said:
Mug of Pee is making the same argument he always makes: that you can’t extrapolate trends beyond the observed data and since there are so few big mammals, we can’t know for sure the expected brain size for a whale sized creature. That’s true but in science often you have to rely on estimates
He suggests that if we compared whales to dinosaurs of equivalent size their encephalization would be more impressive than humans’, but this is not good argument because every species’ encephalization would skyrocket if dinosaurs were the reference group and humans would still likely to be the highest by far
SantoCulto said:
Off topic
Name redacted by pp, aug 7, 2017 said:
Gs said:
I’m Jewish and I think a few of you have hit on a major difference between smart Jews and smart gentiles/asians that I have noticed in my life.
Smart Jews are more holistic/warm/creative. They are less aspergy and so are able to run circles around others. I think this is related to verbal iq but also to the middle eastern personality type. It’s very unusual to have smart people that have the ability to reason by analogies and by noticing distant conceptual connections rather than analytically working it out. In fact, I’ve personally succeeded in a math heavy field with no particular math talent because I can solve most of the math without resorting to math. I just do it conceptually.
Santoculto said:
I thought hdd chick already said that ashkenazis tend to have more ADHD personality/ I like to call “euphoric unipolar personality”. And I already posted here a graph showing that atheists tend to scores higher in autism and Jews the lowest.
I thought degrees of psychopathic personality and in combination with its otherwise psychological profile may increase “free will” as well intellectual mobility to challenge, change or improve ideas as well the phenomenon of desperaonalization, I mean, I discriminated honest AND naive people tend to be too much empathetic and tend to approach people alll the time in first person. It’s mean higher levels of agreeableness. While be little cynical at priori can reduce this magnetism. And in the world of (((heggelitarianism))) too agreeable people that tend to be very conformist too it’s difficult to separate public and private pwesona. To the too honest and humble no there private persona. Too transparent, too vulnerable.
GondwanaMan said:
Interesting. NOw in English!
Santoculto said:
Gondi
Use your gigantic”Iclue” to understand if you want. I no have patience with LITTLE IMMATURE BOYS. Maybe if I reduce the complexity to GayJam levels you will understand.
Santoculto said:
Only one part where because my anxiety to write via smartphone become salient. Remember Gondi, if you stop to comment forever few people will perceive it or lament.
Gondi is the guy who think Jews are the good people and white is the bad. What a joker. Jews with all its cleverness manipulate western history to blame only “whites”, historically and in collective ways. Do you really think one of the most profitable economic activity during great discoveries era “Jews” would not have participated?? If not contributes in considerable ways?? I’m not trying to take from whites the guilty for it, in collective perspective but not in individual (like: I’m white, I’m guilty by African slavery that happened when I wasn’t born). It’s the question to give historical responsibility for ALL who participate. Maybe Gondi is fine to blame “Arabs” too. Less Jews… Maybe.
Bruno said:
Neither Ian Smith nor Pumpkin is stupid at all ! Ian Smith has a point in the fact that the criteria is a just a measuring artifact that can be criticized (I suppose the lie thing is a joke). But Pumpkin is right on the understanding of the objectivity of the criteria.
It’s true that a simple percentage relation between brain and body mass would be more straightforward and objective.
But if by averaging the values for many different animals, you find a linear relation among brain size grows but X less, than body size, then it is perfectly objective too, to compare the expected size the brain should be to the body size if the species had the average coeffficient for all animals, and the real size, and get a ratio from those two values. Maybe this method was designed to put the human specie on top (above the mouth !), but it is nevertheless perfectly objective.
You don’t have to confound its motive and its objectivity.
pumpkinperson said:
Bruno, it’s a well known physical rule in biology that the bigger you are, the smaller your brain size to body size ratio, so Mug of Pee’s argument of just taking the simple ratio would just reward small animals more than smart ones.
Santoculto said:
I think it’s true the maximization of intelligence within our tasks humans are the dumbest, paradoxically, because our “self” domestication. Humans have bigger and complex brains but tend to be quite erratic in their reasoning if compared with other living beings where the survivability is extremely required. But what I said the capacity to think and internalize bullshit and irrelevant informations can be important to creativity but not doubt to “modern human behavior”.
Philly O' Sopher said:
But mice are smarter than most animals.
I suspect ants need the brain mass because there has been a long suspicon of a hivemind programme in their minds. A kind of psychic relation.
A fair comparison would be to keep scale among primates and closely related organisms.
Why draw the line at reptiles v mammals rather than primates v whales or rodents?
pumpkinperson said:
If you included reptiles in the scatter plot, the human brain would be even more than seven times bigger than expected for body size
The reason it’s only mammals and not all animals is partly because some animals have no brain
Santoculto said:
Ants are extremely energetic workaholic species. But based on this criteria cats will be the dumbest bur not ;)).
Philly O' Sopher said:
Then whats parts of the brain did you decide constituted a brain?
SantoCulto said:
Brain is to body what nuclei is to cell. I thought brainless OR nuclei-less living beings don’t exist.
ian smith said:
the actual formula for EQ is found by fitting the curve ln (brain weight) = constant + r*ln (body weight). where r is a constant between 0 and 1.
but there are no animals to compare elephants and blue whales to directly. they’re so much bigger than all others.
SantoCulto said:
illuminaticatblog said:
Brontosaurus had the same weight as a blue whale there about but the dinosaur’s brain was the size of a walnut. T-Rex may have been as big as an elephant.
Philly O' Sopher said:
Pumpkin is also wrong on musical iq because he abstracted the cognitive part of the musical iq from its personality. I think creative schizo guys do very well at the bread and butter of sexual reproduction of genes. Money is given by master to good servants.
90% of people into rock rap edm or even most pop would not associate their favourite artists with rule following.
Pumpkin will accept iq is to personality as trunk is to form of elephant by the end of this year.
And will i win my nobel prize?
199never.
I should meet a psychiatrist and co author a paper on this.
pumpkinperson said:
Pumpkin is also wrong on musical iq because he abstracted the cognitive part of the musical iq from its personality
Damn right i did. The personality supposedly associated with music might be very useful but that’s not the talent itself. You’re confusing correlation with causation. It’s like saying good looking guys are good at music and good looking guys do well, but that doesn’t mean music talent helped them independently of their looks and it doesn’t mean looks are part of talent or talent part of looks.
You want to lump different traits together instead of considering their independent effect. It’s a very unprecise sloppy unscientific way of thinking
But there are scientist who define intelligence as part of personality. These say personality has 3 components: temperment, intellect and experience
So you’re not wrong to say intelligence is part of personality, you’re just using a broader definition than the one used in psychometrics where personality is somewhat equivalent to temperament rather than a superset there of. It would be nice if we could get beyond semantics
And most musicians are not subversive about anything important but only to satisfy their depraved sexual needs. John Phillips was accused of fucking his daughter and Michael Jackson admitted to sharing his bed with little boys (though denied it was sexual). And you admire these people more than Gates and Buffett because…they’re less nerdy?
Grow up pill.
High school’s over!
Santoculto said:
Jeez
PP giving moral advises is creepy…
Apocalypse already can happen.
So all musicians are depraved and all business men and OPRAH are fantastically ubermeschen…
Some people fit perfectly to live in senzalas…
Santoculto said:
I really don’t think Pill hate this guys just because they are nerdies even it’s a good reason to hate tha collaborators and not because they are “successful” but what the kind of success that is required in our amazing civilization.
Philly O' Sopher said:
No. Its nore like a person who is open minded, novelty seeking and creative would do well in life rather than looks per se.
Its impossible for most people to have high quant without some sort of asperger personality as well.
The way the mind interperets and systemises the world is inherently linked to their preferences, way of thinking, charisma experession and sense of self .
SantoCulto said:
The Philosopher Redux said:
http://www.iobit.com/en/update/db/?&ver=4.4.0.512&lan=&to=update&name=db&ref=db4
They have a very odd physiognomy.
Compared to:
Both pictures of asian men.
Bruno said:
Pumpkin, exactly. I just don’t really know much about that inductive rule of biology, and prefer to stay in the deductive side of the argument, so I took it like a premise, and concluded you’re right on the objectivity of the proposition.
As for biology, I have just bought the french version of “The human body for dummies” and “Genetics for the dummy” as a beach book for my 2 weeks vacation in Barcelona (the good part of being french, you can get 10 weeks vacation without being a teacher). I also found Jensen book for free on internet and I read the introduction and the first chapter. I plan to read it this year. I loved the description of genious polymath Francis Galton. I have many weird points in common with this guy except I don’t let me fall into them in such an extreme way and I dont do science. I heard about him recently, because he was mentioned as the first one to discover aphantasia. He identified the condition and found that 15% of royal society scientists had it, wich was many more times than high school pupils. But he didn’t worked out the age factor by testing a sample of non selected old people. I suspect age is also a factor because old people have less images in their short term memory skills, are less able to form mental images in general (even with their long term memory, both semantic and procedural) and loses part of their episodic memory. All those things are present in most people with aphantasia condition at whatever age.
SantoCulto said:
”Polymath” = supposed-to-be those who know EVERYTHING**
illuminaticatblog said:
Jordan Peterson Reveals His IQ
SantoCulto said:
OH MY GOSH
pray –for– him#
SantoCulto said:
StaystrongPete#
Xanadan said:
Go to Quora and you can see discussions on Einstein’s place in the Physics pantheon.
In 1905 he had a year of publications that is famous in the annals of science – just google Einstein 1905. Four ground breaking papers in one year – that is genius. He didn’t even win Nobel prize for relativity, which was too controversial.
General relativity was a much greater achievement than even 1905 and no one was even close as far as I am aware, we could have waited 10-50 years for that.
So to dismiss Einstein’s achievements just because he had a small brain or is Jewish would be incredibly ignorant.
I did do Chemistry with Molecular Physics at University, so I do have more familiarity with the material than most here.
pumpkinperson said:
i don’t want to believe the greatest scientist of the 20th century had a small brain so I’m openminded to theories he plagiarized his work, however i know nothing about the field so can’t speak with authority.
See Bruno’s comment above for more knowledgeable opinions
But i agree the person in the youtube might be biased against Einstein for political reasons
SantoCulto said:
He might be biased it still doesn’t mean he might be wrong and in the end of the day,
to be cautious about jews is far-to-be irrational.
SantoCulto said:
Who is the most happier people/human boings in that intra-terrestrial wow**
hum*
PSYCHOPATHS and neighbors…
They can’t feel sadness isn’t** Never*
other kind of hyper-euphorical pershonelit disorder…
SantoCulto said:
Sinister positivet
ian smith said:
the best 4 minutes in movies, and still relevant.
SantoCulto said:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-08/uou-nla080217.php
SantoCulto said:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-08/uou-nla080217.php
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-08/wha-nrs080417.php
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-08/uoc–sdl080417.php
The Philosopher Redux said:
So I thought about european history brushing my teeth. It seems the Germans are the asians of Europe.
They were also the most reactionary well before Hitler. The austrian politician Metternich was basically the royalist policeman of europe after the french rev, and of course bismarck was more conservative than most Brit and French pols (but not Russian). East asians have very reactionary politics by euro standards today.
My hunch is that if the other european powers werent there, Germany would have isolated itself, not colonised countries and become a police state type of region.
In the longer run, aspergers would shoot up and the creativity and innovation would decline. On the other hand Germanic people are responsible for the vast majority of science, philosophy, (classical) music and so on. When you compare germanics to celts, meds (to a lesser extent maybe) and slavs, theres no doubt that they were the animus for european supremacy.
So Hitler was right in a sense about ‘aryan supremacy’ if you want to look at the record objectively.
I would subsume the scandanavians, dutch, french and english into the germanic tent as well but that would destroy the asians of europe idea. Scandies are by far the highest empathy people in the world – and thats why their countries are like the Elven kingdoms in Lord of the Rings.
Issam Ouakrim said:
I strongly disagree with you on that point. The vast majority of the great things Europe produce come from the Meds.
Look at the roman empire, ancient greece… without these there is no Europe.
SantoCulto said:
But ”meds” is a geographical term, we don’t know how ancient mediterranean europeans looked.
Issam Ouakrim said:
Ancient Romans/greeks were probably like actual North Africans (Berbers). Nowedays Italians are mixed with Nordics because of the barbaric invasion at the fall of Rome.
SantoCulto said:
Source*
Interestingly seems we no have any consistent anthropological study made by romans or greeks [or most ancient populations] showing how they were in this aspect.
About ancient greeks seems the pre-classical ones were local mediterraneans, again, at least myself, don’t know how they looked like, maybe less ”nordic”. Classical greeks were the mixture between this locals with invaders from north, but the proportion…
A very vague or not-so-quote from a greek philosopher who said Greeks are perfect because they are not lighter as northerners neither darker as southerners.
Maybe they were just like current hungarians [and central europeans on general] with a wild variety of european sub-races, and even with some minor extra-european blood, and with no sub-racial homogeneity [most of meds, nords or alps, or dinarids,etc].
The Philosopher Redux said:
Trumpys takedown of the danish senator blumenthal is interesting, not because its hilarious (it is), but the fact that a senator would lie about serving in vietnam and tell war stories as if he was there. More evidence of jewish psychopathy.
You can imagine most of the likes on blumenthals ‘dont be a bully mr pres’ were jdf bots.
That was a mortal shiv that trump did. Blumenthal is ruined.
Notice the way the media never caught out blumenthal when he was running. Zion covers for each other – THATS THE RIGHT ANSWER, ITS A CONSPIRACY! LIFETIME KFC FOR YOU DING DING DING
ian smith said:
is that a real picture?
GondwanaMan said:
professional photoshop
The Philosopher Redux said:
Something that aspergers people never get is that blumenthal, hilary etc lie without flinching. I think there is a sense that the tech workers I showed above, would believe an excuse she made after lying because deep down they can’t conceive a person would bald faced lie about something outrageous. I might be the opposite, but I wouldn’t have committed suicide even 10 years ago and voted for a neocon.
The Philosopher Redux said:
https://www.lyingcrookedhillary.com/
Never knew about this site from the trump campaign.
I think Hilarys worst lie was when she said she took ‘sniper fire’ from extremists in serbia after coming off a flight. There is a video showing her smiling and shaking hands and things. Hahaha.
Blumenthal worked a lot with hilary in the past, even before he was a senator for Israel.
ian smith said:
would not be surprised if she cheated on her PSAT/NMSQT. cattle futures.
james woods another white gentile male super high IQ who loves the donald.
Truthteller said:
james woods another white gentile male super high IQ who loves the donald.
http://listverse.com/2009/01/18/15-surprisingly-super-smart-celebrities/
Do you really believe this guy have an IQ of 180 ?
pumpkinperson said:
No. His self-proclaimed SAT scores were extremely high but not Bill Gates IQ 170 level. He also claims to have a huge dick which makes me think he’s prone to exaggeration
Philly O' Sopher said:
Whats his iq based on his sat?
That list is stupid. Meryll streep is more or less like some of the diligent qorker women i met in college. Not able to create ideas but able to memorise them.
Arnold might be 130 iq though.
Ive heard sharon stone is really smart. She looks intelligent.
Nat portman is in the 120s id say.
The use of iq umbers to me are akin to saying that pokemon is worth 3 charmanders and a jigglypuff. Without knowing how creative or socially intelligent a person is, you cant say much. I suspect including those the fake numbers bizzarely do make sense then . Good actors are the defibition of great social intelligence.
By iq numbers a person shouldnt be living in assisted living or doong high school 14 times over like rick rosner or flunking and becoming a bouncer like langan.
Philly O' Sopher said:
Iq should try to predict achievement, in the social sexual and eco sense in my view. Not stand alone as some sort of monument that we throw ourselves at grasping for clues on how the jungle god julu will rule on whether it rains in a fortnight.
pumpkinperson said:
Iq should try to predict achievement, in the social sexual and eco sense in my view.
You could argue that IQ should predict the kinds of success that caused human intelligence to evolve in the first place, though we don’t know much about the selection pressures that made humans so much smarter than apes. We do know language and tool use were extremely important selection pressures so it makes sense that verbal and spatial IQ loom large on IQ tests. IQ tests should only predict sexual success if you believe intelligence evolved through sexual selection instead of natural selection proper, which I doubt because men arguably got less sexy in the last million years or so (if muscle mass is the criterion)
pumpkinperson said:
And I’ll respond to your brain size comments in an imminent article.
gypsymanangelo said:
I suspect Bill Gates’ SAT score indicates an IQ score closer to the 150-160 area than 170, given that he took it prior to 1974 before which if Mensa is to be trusted a score of 1300 is roughly equal to an IQ score of 130, something which is anecdotally supported by Al Gore’s IQ of 134 and SAT score of 1355 and more strongly supported by the Dartmouth study which if anything indicates an SAT score of 1300 or higher translates to an IQ in the late 120’s.
If the Dartmouth study is to be trusted Al Gore must have been lazy, he could have probably juiced up his score into the 1400’s. The rest of his academic transcripts also tell the tale of a gifted underachiever, well, as under-achieveing as a Harvard undergrad could possibly be.
pumpkinperson said:
I suspect Bill Gates’ SAT score indicates an IQ score closer to the 150-160 area than 170, given that he took it prior to 1974 before which if Mensa is to be trusted a score of 1300 is roughly equal to an IQ score of 130,
Mensa’s probably just making a very rough estimate without giving it much thought. Using a much more detailed analysis, I found an IQ of 130 (U.S. norms) probably equals 1218 in 1966, 1170 in 1974, 1183 in 1983 and 1203 in 1994. My numbers could be wrong too, but I at least explained my logic which Mensa never did. I can’t be certain of what Gates’s score equated to at the time he was tested because near-perfect scores on the old SAT were much more rare than the normal curve would predict but in the years for which people have looked at the extreme high end of the old SAT, 1590+ = about IQ 170.
something which is anecdotally supported by Al Gore’s IQ of 134 and SAT score of 1355 and more strongly supported by the Dartmouth study which if anything indicates an SAT score of 1300 or higher translates to an IQ in the late 120’s.
But don’t forget regression to the mean. We’d expect Dartmouth students to have much higher IQs as measured by the SAT then they do as measured by official IQ tests.
gypsymanangelo said:
>I found an IQ of 130 (U.S. norms) probably equals 1218 in 1966
You also found that SAT IQ /= IQ, and you and I, unlike Mugabe, have found and read the Dartmouth study and thus you know that in real terms a group with an average SAT of 1360 can have an average IQ as low as 126.5, as did the control group for the Dartmouth study.
>But don’t forget regression to the mean.
Maybe it’s a failure of statistical comprehension on my part, but being representative of a group that’s subject to this kind of selection bias due to strivers, grinds and so on, shouldn’t we take that into account when predicting his actual IQ? After all, he was being selected based on his scores too and as a result would have likely made attempts to optimise his score.
Also Paul Allen scored the rare perfect 1600, you should do more stuff on him.
pumpkinperson said:
You also found that SAT IQ /= IQ, and you and I, unlike Mugabe, have found and read the Dartmouth study and thus you know that in real terms a group with an average SAT of 1360 can have an average IQ as low as 126.5, as did the control group for the Dartmouth study.
Well the definition of what is and what isn’t an IQ test is somewhat arbitrary since every test measures intelligence to some degree. The regression to the mean showed by Dartmouth students is not unique to the SAT. If you took a bunch of gifted high school kids, as selected by the Wechsler intelligence scales, and then gave them another IQ test (the Raven), their scores would also regress precipitously to the mean, even though both the Wechsler and the Raven are OFFICIAL IQ tests. So the problem is not just that the SAT is a very imperfect measure of intelligence, but also that’s there’s a selection bias universal to all such tests: People selected based on scores on test X will regress to the mean on test Y.
Because we can’t measure intelligence directly like height or weight, both the SAT and official IQ tests are just proxy measures. Imagine if we couldn’t measure height directly so instead we measured it indirectly by basketball performance or by arm span. The latter would be a much better measure of height than the former just like the Wechsler IQ tests are probably a much better measure of intelligence than the SAT, but both are just proxy measures. So a college that selected only people who averaged at the 99.9 percentile in basketball skill might find their students regressed to the 95th percentile on arm span, and vice versa, but both measures would correlate much better with true height than either correlate with each other, just as both the Wechsler and the SAT likely correlate much better with g than either test correlates with each other.
gypsymanangelo said:
And I don’t think it is a failure of statistical comprehension on my part, the Dartmouth study seems to suggest that were I to pick out an individual from the control group, with an SAT of over 1300, his IQ is liable to dip below the predicted mark, and land squarely in the 120’s.
pumpkinperson said:
And I don’t think it is a failure of statistical comprehension on my part,
No, if you’re misunderstanding anything (and I’m not saying you are) it’s my fault because I apply these concepts in a somewhat inconsistent and extremely weird way: using predicted IQs from SAT scores for entire universities (i.e. Dartmouth) and using SAT IQ equivalents for individuals (Bill Gates). The reason for this inconsistency is that for elite schools, the mean IQ score on the admission test tends to be much higher than the mean IQ score these students would get on a randomly administered test, and that’s because BY DEFINITION, Ivy League students did well on the SAT and so regress to the mean on tests that they did not BY DEFINITION do well on.
However for individuals, the SAT is generally just a RANDOM sample of their IQ, so there’s no systematic reason (other than selective disclosure) to think their IQ as measured by the SAT will be higher (or lower) than their IQ as measured by the WAIS or by the Raven or any other test.
the Dartmouth study seems to suggest that were I to pick out an individual from the control group, with an SAT of over 1300, his IQ is liable to dip below the predicted mark, and land squarely in the 120’s
You say dip below the PREDICTED mark, so I should clarify that when I said Dartmouth students had an IQ of 144 (according to the SAT), that wasn’t a prediction of how they would score on an IQ test, but rather an attempted translation of the SAT scale to the IQ scale (an IQ equivalent score). In other words, if one considers the SAT an IQ test, their IQ would be 144 (U.S. norms). An IQ of 144 defined as scoring +2.93 SD (one in 596 level) for ALL Americans on any test some consider an IQ test.
Their predicted IQ on another test would be lower because predicted scores factor in regression to the mean, and indeed their observed score on another test (the WAIS) was much lower (the 120s).
gypsymanangelo said:
>and that’s because BY DEFINITION, Ivy League students did well on the SAT and so regress to the mean on tests that they did not BY DEFINITION do well on.
Yes, but in order for this to happen, there needs to be a sample of people overperforming their predicted intelligence on a randomly administered test on the SAT, and there’s no reason to think that Bill Gates isn’t a participant in this phenomenon.
>However for individuals, the SAT is generally just a RANDOM sample of their IQ, so there’s no systematic reason (other than selective disclosure) to think their IQ as measured by the SAT will be higher (or lower) than their IQ as measured by the WAIS or by the Raven or any other test.
But there is, as I stated above in order that a group performs well on one measure of intelligence and then fails to perform as well on another they need to be overperforming on the former, and there’s simply no reason to think that Bill Gates wouldn’t participate in this attempt to overperform, after all he’s incentivised by university opportunities.
It doesn’t make sense to say, effectively, that group averages overperform their predicted mark and say at the same time that someone participating in this group average doesn’t participate in this phenomenon.
I think what we have a case of here, is that you’re over-abstracting the phenomena from its basis in reality. If, as an average, SAT is not representative of intelligence when it ought to be, there must be a material reason why. I suspect it’s due to disclosed past papers and so on, as people have rightly pointed out it’s evidently possible to algorithmically “Game” IQ tests as some AI’s already can, so when the material necessary for this “Gaming” is available and the practice is incentivised it’s inevitable.
pumpkinperson said:
But there is, as I stated above in order that a group performs well on one measure of intelligence and then fails to perform as well on another they need to be overperforming on the former, and there’s simply no reason to think that Bill Gates wouldn’t participate in this attempt to overperform, after all he’s incentivised by university opportunities.
On the other hand you could argue that his SAT was an underperformance given how successful he was in real life. In other words, you can always find post-hoc excuses to reject or accept any test score. If he had scored 170 on the Raven instead of the SAT you could say it’s a very logic based test and thus we’d expect a computer geek to overperform.
It doesn’t make sense to say, effectively, that group averages overperform their predicted mark and say at the same time that someone participating in this group average doesn’t participate in this phenomenon.
But the difference is, we only know the scores of Ivy League students AS A GROUP, because they did well enough on the SAT to get into the Ivy League, so for Ivy League students as a group, the SAT is not even close to a test score released at random out of all the possible tests. For an INDIVIDUAL Ivy League student, scores are not randomly released either, but the disclosure is much closer to random than it is for the group as a whole. For example, in Al Gore’s case, both the SAT score and the official IQ score was made public. JFK and Nixon both attended elite schools, but only their official IQ scores are known (via biographers sniffing through high school records) and their college admission scores are not known.
gypsymanangelo said:
>The regression to the mean showed by Dartmouth students is not unique to the SAT.
I’m not suggesting that it is.
gypsymanangelo said:
I propose that each member of an average that will precipitously decline to the mean has his own average amount of “Statistical drift” towards that mean, some people will drift hugely (People who gamed the test, got lucky) some people will drift somewhat (Average amount of prep) and some not at all (Those who didn’t prep)
Because if, as a group, you overperform you likely have people amongst you who overperformed their intelligence vastly and some who overperformed to some degree, and some, I’m sure, who underperformed.
gypsymanangelo said:
And I’m still hoping that one of these days you’ll reach out to Cambridge University or something and attempt to request that they do a study on the average intelligence of their undergrads, post-grads, and faculty.
That’d be the gold mind of actually interesting IQ data.
Maybe have them implement your idea and use two seperate IQ tests to see if there’s significant statistical drift.
gypsymanangelo said:
> In other words, you can always find post-hoc excuses to reject or accept any test score.
I don’t think that’s fair. Whilst I’d go so far as to agree that pedantic people are likely to perform well on IQ tests of any stripe despite their actual intellectual potential, I’ve said as much before, I think the SAT is unique in at least the respect that gaming it is both easier and more incentivised than, say, gaming the Ravens or WAIS, the resources to prepare for it are much more available, and the opportunities then present for success in doing so are enormous.
>But the difference is, we only know the scores of Ivy League students AS A GROUP, because they did well enough on the SAT to get into the Ivy League, so for Ivy League students as a group, the SAT is not even close to a test score released at random out of all the possible tests.
And we know that as a group they over-perform the mark, we can deduce from this that individuals present in this group are out-performing their ability level as indicated by the WAIS. There must be a mechanism available for them to do so, and as a result we can deduce that there will be a mean “Statistical drift”, an average amount that each individual who participated in the test will decline to the mean.
pumpkinperson said:
Yes but the Ivy League is not the only group Gates belongs to let alone his primary group membership. The fact that he’s also super rich and in a very g loaded field suggests that his score on any one test (including the SAT) would underperform his score on tests in general, so when discussing individual Ivy League students, you introduce a bias by arbitrarily giving their Ivy League group membership salience over all other groups they belong to.
gypsymanangelo said:
>The fact that he’s also super rich and in a very g loaded field suggests that his score on any one test (including the SAT) would underperform his score on tests in general,
I don’t disagree with you at all, I think his radical outperformance of his “Better” Paul Allen as measured by SAT suggests a brain than far exceeds his, but I think I’d be right in saying that it seems that his SAT indicates an IQ closer to 150 than 170.
His “Life” IQ, if you’d like to call it that, is obviously stratospheric. But he isn’t a patch on my boy Jansci.
pumpkinperson said:
but I think I’d be right in saying that it seems that his SAT indicates an IQ closer to 150 than 170.
His IQ as measured by what test?
gypsymanangelo said:
WAIS, given that the WAIS was used in the Dartmouth study.
I’d guess that the relationship to other IQ tests without the same opportunity to “Game” the tests is similar, but without a study to support that it’s just speculation.
pumpkinperson said:
Well, when I say someone has an IQ of X, I simply mean their average score on psychometric tests with a g loading of about 0.7+ is equivalent to X. For Gates only one such test score is known (the SAT) but I see no strong a priori reason to think his SAT is not representative of how he performs on such tests, but for Ivy League students as a group I think it’s a biased estimate.
As for gaming the SAT, that’s probably why the g loading (as far as I can estimate) is only around 0.7 in the general U.S. population (though much higher in certain subgroups), instead of say 0.85.
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.
gypsymanangelo said:
PP, if someone belongs to a group that very definitely overperforms the expected mark as measured by the WAIS, why shouldn’t we expect them to regress to the mean by an average amount? Do you simply think that in any given lot of Harvard students there’s a cluster of people that overperform?
Given that he’s in a group that as an average, overperforms, if we found out the average amount by which any given group overperfomed their predicted score on the Weschler we can find the average amount by which any given individual who took the SAT may have exceeded the mark. Not every person in this group will have exceeded the mark, many may under-perform, but as an average they certainly will have exceeded the mark and I see of no reason to assume a bright man like Bill Gates wouldn’t take advantage of an opportunity to over-perform.
pumpkinperson said:
PP, if someone belongs to a group that very definitely overperforms the expected mark as measured by the WAIS, why shouldn’t we expect them to regress to the mean by an average amount? Do you simply think that in any given lot of Harvard students there’s a cluster of people that overperform?
So if Gates didn’t go to Harvard, you wouldn’t expect him to regress? Paul Allen scored even higher on the SAT than Gates but went to a non-elite college. Does that mean he should regress less than Gates if taking the WAIS? Of course not.
So the issue is not that Gates went to Harvard, the issue is that anyone who scores high on test X would be expected to regress to the mean on test Y. But that doesn’t mean the SAT is a BIASED sample of Gates’s IQ.
If we had the SAT scores and WAIS scores of every billionaire in America, we might indeed find both Gates and Allen regressed from about 170 on the SAT to about 150 on the WAIS, but what we’d also expect is that for every billionaire who loses 20 IQ points when they move from the SAT to the WAIS, another billionaire would gain 20 points, so while individual rank order would shift, the mean and distribution of the group as a whole would stay the same. This is because neither the SAT nor WAIS should be a biased test for billionaires as a group, because the group was not selected by either test, but rather by wealth.
But when the same experiment is done on Harvard students as a group, the result is very different. Instead of individuals trading IQs, you find the mean of the entire group drops precipitously. That’s the difference between random error and systematic error.
So the issue is not whether Gates would regress to the mean, the issue is whether the SAT is a BIASED estimate of his IQ. The SAT is a biased measured of Harvard group IQ, not because they game the test per se since all tests have error of some kind, but because if they hadn’t done exceptionally well on the SAT, their SAT scores would not have been included in the sample, because they wouldn’t be Harvard students. This generally puts a very high floor on how low their SAT scores can possibly be, but there’s no such floor when they take the WAIS because it wasn’t used as an entrance exam. If it were, then the WAIS would be the biased test and the SAT would be the preferred measure.
gypsymanangelo said:
>So if Gates didn’t go to Harvard, you wouldn’t expect him to regress?
If there are enough people over-performing their ability level, it will have skewed the results, statistically. One assumes all applicants to elite colleges are at it. This means that if Bill Gates applied to nowhere at all his results would still be an over-estimate of his intelligence.
Membership to Harvard or Dartmouth just guarantees us you were in a group subject to this overperformance, but the over-performance itself is probably wide-spread. Although I’d expect the average over-performance at a lower-tier college to be lesser, given that if your ambition is to go to a lesser-tier college I think you’re liable to make less of an effort on your SAT’s.
To put it another way, there will be many more people with IQ’s of 120 attaining scores of 1300+ on the SAT than will ordinarily be predicted.
>This is because neither the SAT nor WAIS should be a biased test for billionaires as a group
No, I’m not wholly sure that’s accurate, if for the reasons that I mentioned above, we have large numbers of people getting into and attempting to get into (Because the statistics from Dartmouth and so on don’t even feature people with SAT scores good enough to get in that didn’t get in, of which there are plenty) these elite collges and attempting to maximise their SAT in order to do so. We’re looking at large-scale high-end inflation.
If we were to use the SAT to determine the intelligence of billionaires requesting a test from their college days may be folly because they may be participants in this overperformance phenomenon themselves, but testing them now would probably yield fair results.
gypsymanangelo said:
“applied to nowhere at all” should mean “accepted at nowhere at all”
I’m making the point that if all of these groups over-perform the mark we’re looking at inflation of SAT results at a whole, i.e. a random 1300 doesn’t mean 140 or so, more like 120.
gypsymanangelo said:
We should discuss this somewhere that’s not cluttering your comment section, but my intuition is that I’m right.
If Bill Gates is part of a group that over-performs their intelligence on the SAT, we’d expect him to over-perform his intelligence on the SAT somewhat (Though, as I’ve said, not necessarily, I’d go so far as to say it could be a rarer under-performance, but on average we should expect some inflation, rather than deflation)
And on this
>Does that mean he should regress less than Gates if taking the WAIS? Of course not.
Quite possibly, my suspicion is that it’s less statistically likely amongst would be lesser-tier college students to attempt to max out your SAT score the way applicants to Harvard seem to do, but I suspect that Paul Allen also had such aspirations before later deciding his future path, so my guess is that he participates in Harvard-tier grade inflation.
pumpkinperson said:
But everyone with a freakishly high IQ score likely overperformed, regardless of the test or background of the person.
Imagine a parallel universe where Gates’s SAT was not known but we knew his Wechser IQ score of 170 and was part of a gifted class when in high school.
Not knowing his SAT, you could argue his Wechsler score was an overperformance and he would regress on the SAT (or any other test) because gifted kids regress to the mean on repeat testing.
Any extreme test result is likely to be an outlier, just because extremes are statistically unlikely. Now in the case of the SAT, the major source of error is some folks prepare and try on the test more than others, but regular IQ tests also have sources of error. Typically not as much as the SAT, I agree, but error nonetheless and people with extreme scores will still tend to come from these error prone groups.
gypsymanangelo said:
>But everyone with a freakishly high IQ score likely overperformed, regardless of the test or background of the person
If you’re smart, the smart thing to do is to do as well as possible, after all.
>Not knowing his SAT, you could argue his Wechsler score was an overperformance and he would regress on the SAT
Not necessarily, and not outside of the ordinary error range.
I have many many reasons to believe the SAT is not representative of IQ, and the only way in which I expect IQ to be unrepresentative of SAT is in the fact that your scores will inflate away from the mean, rather than regress towards it.
In your alternative universe I’d suppose that he’d break the scale on the SAT, given that the trend from IQ to SAT is rightwards on the bell-curve rather than leftwards.
pumpkinperson said:
I have many many reasons to believe the SAT is not representative of IQ, and the only way in which I expect IQ to be unrepresentative of SAT is in the fact that your scores will inflate away from the mean, rather than regress towards it.
In your alternative universe I’d suppose that he’d break the scale on the SAT, given that the trend from IQ to SAT is rightwards on the bell-curve rather than leftwards.
That’s statistically impossible. For every American with a SAT > WAIS, there has to be another with a WAIS > SAT because IQ equivalents on both tests by definition are normally distributed with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15. If IQ 140s on the SAT regresses to IQ 120s on the SAT, then IQ 140s on the WAIS regres to IQ 120s on the SAT, otherwise IQ 140+ will be more common on the SAT then on the WAIS and by definition only about 0.5% of Americans can be 140+ on any one test
pumpkinperson said:
In other words, for every person who moves down the IQ ladder from the SAT to the WAIS, there must be someone else who moves up the ladder when going from the SAT to the WAIS because the bell curves for both IQs are statistically equated so you can’t have one-way trends without leaving gaps in the bell curve of one test or the other, because your IQ is just your rank order on a particular test.
gypsymanangelo said:
>That’s statistically impossible. For every American
Except for Americans that aspire to go to Harvard apparently, or any other Ivy League institutions.
>WAIS > SAT
There certainly seems to be a large group not maximising their potential on the SAT, but assuming that this parallel Gates has the same aspirations we have no reason to believe he’d be one of the group that fails to maximise their potential.
pumpkinperson said:
Harvard is just a group of americans selected for high SAT scores so it’s not surprising their SATs exceed their WAIS score.
But any group selected for test X will score higher on test X than on a randomly selected test
pumpkinperson said:
If suddenly all americans prep so hard for the SAT that the average SAT IQ for all Americans becomes 140, then 140 gets redefined as 100
So you can never have more people scoring above a certain IQ than the normal curve predicts, regardless of how or why they score high
gypsymanangelo said:
>In other words, for every person who moves down the IQ ladder from the SAT to the WAIS
That’s true enough but you must reconcile it with the Material reality that a large percentage of people overperform to attend the Ivy League, as confirmed experimentally, and we have no reason to believe Bill Gates isn’t subject to some statistical reflection of this given his participation in this group, rather than the group that under-performs their intelligence on the SAT.
gypsymanangelo said:
To put it another way, participation in the Ivy League gives one better odds for statistically regressing towards the mean than away from it.
gypsymanangelo said:
>So you can never have more people scoring above a certain IQ than the normal curve predicts, regardless of how or why they score high
I’m not necessarily saying otherwise, I’m saying that the odds of Bill Gates, and any inidivdual who’s participated in the Ivy League, over-perfoming their WAIS IQ are greater than the odds of non-participants.
pumpkinperson said:
You’re saying high SAT scores regress more if they’re earned by Ivy League students?
Maybe, since ivy leaguers are more motivated. Or maybe not since academic motivation is itself a sign of high IQ
It would make an interesting study
gypsymanangelo said:
And, being a kid with a WAIS IQ of 170 and presumably high ambitions you’re much more likely to over-perform and break the scale than a working class kid with an IQ of 130 who simply doesn’t care as much and only intends to go to community college, scoring 1200 or something on the SAT.
gypsymanangelo said:
Kids like that will produce the normal distribution you’re looking for, strivers with 120 will distort it and give you many more people attaining 1300 with 120 and the rougher kids will give you many more 130’s attaining 1200 than there ought to be.
pumpkinperson said:
But if IQ equivalents are assigned based on observed rarity of SAT scores rather than theoretical rarity, then the IQ distribution is forced to be normal
gypsymanangelo said:
>You’re saying high SAT scores regress more if they’re earned by Ivy League students?
It’s supported by some of the research, after all.
Interesting questions are posed by interesting people, PP
gypsymanangelo said:
Al Gore, is, after all out of rank order.
gypsymanangelo said:
>It’s supported by some of the research, after all.
I’ll double down on that, it has to be that way, as per the Dartmouth study.
pumpkinperson said:
Several commenters on this blog did not attend Ivy League schools but had huge SAT > Wechsler gaps
Then you also have non-ivy bill cosby who qualifies for gifted class based on official IQ test but scored around IQ 80 on the SAT
gypsymanangelo said:
>But if IQ equivalents are assigned based on observed rarity of SAT scores rather than theoretical rarity
Explain what you mean, if you mean what I think you mean I’ve already answered you here:
“Kids like that will produce the normal distribution you’re looking for, strivers with 120 will distort it and give you many more people attaining 1300 with 120 and the rougher kids will give you many more 130’s attaining 1200 than there ought to be.”
Some kids will underperform, an equal number of kids will overperform (Exactly as you’ve said will happen earlier), those over-performing kids will go to elite colleges and as a result the average WAIS IQ at those colleges is lower. This exchange produces an observed normal distribution.
pumpkinperson said:
All I mean is that deviation IQ (U.S. norms) is calculated via the following formula:
IQ = (Z score relative to all Americans)(15) + 100
But there are two types of Z scores. The ones that are based on the real distribution which one assumes will be normal, and one based on the NORMALIZED distribution (which is FORCED to be normal, no assumption required).
I elaborate in this article.
gypsymanangelo said:
Maybe I should write a whole guest-article on this, “How and why the Ivy League is dumber than you think”
And I say that confidently, I believe the WAIS is a better measure of intelligence after all.
pumpkinperson said:
Maybe I should write a whole guest-article on this,
Great idea!
gypsymanangelo said:
>All I mean is that deviation IQ (U.S. norms) is calculated via the following formula:
But I mean how does that apply to what we’re saying.
I think the idea that Ivy Leaguers are over-perfoming is perfectly explained by the fact that you’ll have an equal number of people whose real IQ is much higher under-performing.
This preserves the distribution of the SAT whilst also explaining strivers and over-performance and it’s supported by all available experimental data.
I hate that all our data is out of date and most of it is US Data, I’m dying for some IQ Data on Cambridge and Oxford Undergrads.
pumpkinperson said:
But I mean how does that apply to what we’re saying.
Well when you said strivers will distort the normal distribution…when a distribution is FORCED to be normal, you can’t distort it. For example, the normal distribution might say only 2% of Americans can score above 1200 on the SAT so 1200 = IQ 130. But if because of strivers 5% of Americans actually score above 1200, then 1200 becomes IQ 125. In other words when IQs are assigned based on the observed frequency of scores rather than the theoretical frequency, it doesn’t matter if the distribution is truly normal because it will be made normal post hoc.
I think the idea that Ivy Leaguers are over-perfoming is perfectly explained by the fact that you’ll have an equal number of people whose real IQ is much higher under-performing.
I think you might be onto something, but the counterargument is that regression to the mean happens on all tests. If had you had two gifted classes in a high school, one where kids were selected based on the Wechsler, and the other where kids were selected based on another official IQ test (the Raven), the Wechsler gifted kids would regress precipitously to the mean on the Raven and the Raven gifted kids would regress precipitously to the mean on the Wechsler. So this may have nothing to do with the Ivy League or strivers per se, just the bivariate normal distribution where if two tests are correlated at value r, then people who are say +3 SD on test X will average +3 SD(r) on test Y.
Only if the degree of regression observed by Ivy League students exceeds that expected by the correlation between the SAT and official IQ tests does your theory become viable. The problem is we don’t actually know the correlation in the general U.S. population, so I estimated it based on the degree of regression itself, but you’re arguing they regress more than expected, which might be true because the correlation I estimated from their regression is much less than the correlation others have estimated using different methods.
gypsymanangelo said:
>Well when you said strivers will distort the normal distribution…when a distribution is FORCED to be normal,
Oh, when I said distortion I didn’t mean right-side clustering, though I did entertain the possibility if I were to discover that SAT results are given like IQ results, IQ results are given against a pre-existing sample, rather than against an actual order of people graduating with you, in the latter case distortion is impossible and there will necessarily be a normal curve, the SAT seems to use the latter case.
When I said distortion I simply mean in the sense that there’s some nefarious business going on in that normal distribution, with some people trading places who really ought not to.
>but the counterargument is that regression to the mean happens on all tests. If had you had two gifted classes in a high school, one where kids were selected based on the Wechsler, and the other where kids were selected based on another official IQ test (the Raven),
It happens for a material reason though, the material reason being that tests have error and that it’s statistically unlikely that you’ll represent your intellect as well twice.
However the gaps are not so marked and enormous as they are with the SAT.
Look in your heart PP, my intuition is bang on. My intuition always is.
pumpkinperson said:
IQ results are given against a pre-existing sample, rather than against an actual order of people graduating with you, in the latter case distortion is impossible and there will necessarily be a normal curve, the SAT seems to use the latter case.
Well the way people like Charles Murray and Ron Hoeflin converted SAT to IQ was to note that since only one in three 17-year-olds take the SAT, and virtually 100% of the top talent takes the SAT, they multiply the rarity of high scores by 3, so if only one in 10,000 SAT takers scored 1560+ on the old SAT, only one in 30,000 17-year-old would score that high, if all U.S. 17-year-olds were tested. Since one in 30,000 level is +4 SD on the normal curve, 1560 is assigned an IQ of 160.
It happens for a material reason though, the material reason being that tests have error and that it’s statistically unlikely that you’ll represent your intellect as well twice.
However the gaps are not so marked and enormous as they are with the SAT.
According to a recent study, the correlation between the WAIS and Raven is 0.67, so people with IQ 145 on the WAIS should average 130 on the Raven and vice versa.
gypsymanangelo said:
>it’s statistically unlikely that you’ll represent your intellect as well twice.
It’s also statistically unlikely that a bright kid with an IQ of 130 lets say will score 125 twice.
So all of the 130 kids who scored 133 lets say regress a little and some of the 130 kids who scored 125 improve a bit, more of the former less of the latter would be my guess.
ian smith said:
lion is gay. he came out in response to one of my comments.
I have seen no evidence that homosexual white males are not contributors. Gay men are the backbone of fashion just as white male nerds are the backbone of tech.
no heterosexual man would ever say this…even if he was a jewish autist.
so the never married and lives in hell’s kitchen thing makes sense.
pumpkinperson said:
no heterosexual man would ever say this
Oh grow up
SantoCulto said:
More Ian open your mouth more he show us how fake-brilliant he is…
Mental age is around 6 years old and we know there are GOOD and TERRIBLY INSUFFERABLE kids…
Ian seems similar to Robert Lindsay…
the ”brain size” maybe is bigger, but the capacity to think/quality seems extremely erratic.
Other interesting thing is that they hate homossexuals by no rational reasons, they just hate.
And just hate … and a non-psychopathic group, is a sign of mental stupidity.
Recently Lindsay said he is a polymath… because he is interested in many different things, i don’t know if this is the best description of polymath.
ian smith said:
a question for those who believe ashkenazi achievement in the 20th c is genetic.
do rich haredi jews still marry their daughters to rabbis? or do haredi rabbis have more children than non-rabbis? until about 1800 all ashkenazi jews were orthodox. it may be that traditions of haredi jews today have been present for 1,000 years or more.
Philly O' Sopher said:
Theres a few ways you can look at the cousin marriage thing working.
1. The jees that did well procreated more.
2. The jews that did well were executed less often because they could lie better.
3. The jews that procreated more didnt die of poverty from what was legitimate social exclusion by being smarter in the autist sense of economic contribution.
4. Jews that did economically badly were encouraged to procreate less in the community as the community shouldered the burden of children. Many extended jew families lived in 1 small apartment.
There an interesting anecdote in fergusons rothschild book where he mentions in the early 1800s a jewish guy being a math professor despite complete social and educational deprivation. And of course many leading bankers in frankfurt were jews.
I assume the above process has been taking place for hundreds of years and i think woth cousin marriage you can quicken the selection of genes.
Jews have herediatry diseases like tay sachs that no other race really has from the amount of cousin marriages.
ian smith said:
yes. first cousin marriage is not prohibited by jewish or islamic law.
sad!
SantoCulto said:
It’s also genetic, the difference is that for humans culture and behavior are mutually more assymetric. Humans may manipulate environment firstly to achieve certain goals secondly, what ashekelnazis did.
illuminaticatblog said:
Pumpkin speculated that because of reaction time that the limit of IQ a human brain can have is 170. Anyone claiming to be above this number is simply miss understanding how intelligence works. Again pumpkin mentions parallelism as being the main factor is problem-solving abilities. Because parallelism allows you to access multiple areas of memory at the same time to hold and manipulate more information at once. This is most likely limited to 170.
Relative to problem difficulty, If I was 120 IQ then:
Pumpkin being 135 would take 1 minute to solve a problem that would take me 8 minutes to solve.
Elon Musk being 150 would take 1 minute to solve a problem that would take me an hour to solve.
Marsha being 170 would take 60 seconds to solve a problem that would take me 17 hours to solve.
There are only about 500 people in America with an IQ of 170, If the 7 people I know really are 170 then this is a statistical novelty.
—
Just recently I had a fever and I had to learn how to control the horrible feelings I was having in my body. I learned how to shut down motor control and stop moving. The biggest problem I have sometimes is the feeling of being all contorted inside and feeling mentally stuck. But little by little I can stop the part of my brain that reacts to it. It is a basic relaxation technique. Because I am less distracted from the pain my perception has expanded. I can see more and music is more rich and deep.
The anterior cingulate cortex is involved in emotional control, pain control and the attention mechanism for coordination of brain activity. It is the brain area associated with the Stroop Effect as of which I got 135 on that test. The reason I think I was unaware of this area in my brain was because of depression and anxiety. People with Aspergers have problems with perceptual control. Specifically, they cannot suppress overwhelming feelings and avoid situations that cause them. Looking into eyes can do this. As with me my entire mental state feels stuck at times and lots of pain involved.
Concluding, I am using my 135 (ACC) to decrease the pain and increase perception.
Reducing stress and increasing mental coordination will likely increase my intelligence. Fast and sustained attention in activating brain regions show the degree to which how parallel a brain is.
pumpkinperson said:
Pumpkin speculated that because of reaction time that the limit of IQ a human brain can have is 170. Anyone claiming to be above this number is simply miss understanding how intelligence works.
If I ever said that I must have been confused. I have no idea what the theoretical limit on human intelligence is.
Again pumpkin mentions parallelism as being the main factor is problem-solving abilities. Because parallelism allows you to access multiple areas of memory at the same time to hold and manipulate more information at once.
Yes that’s a theory I read about created by a member of a super high IQ society: Supposedly complex problem solving speed doubles every 5 IQ points or so. It’s never been formally researched though.
Sammykid said:
What do you think the IS of the greatest genius was and at what time in history did he belong?
The Cis-'Gender' Philosopher said:
Oprah Winfrey
Philly O' Sopher said:
Whats more important in evolutionpumpkin – making fiat money or sexual/social adaptation.
Thats the answer gypsy should say.
Philly O' Sopher said:
What do you think the iq is of a person in assisted living is pumpkin, generally speaking?
Reminds me of a guy in my hometown who is some sort of physics brilliant guy who cycles around the town all the time and is unemployed.
I live in a basement as well. But at least i was something before the onset of my ‘genetic predisposition’ ruined my life. Or maybe being aware of reality ruined my life. Its that old saw about being a mixed race black asian man who suddenly realises his identity is a fashion statement and has no mooring when the tide goes out.
Reality is best not known maybe. Its too painful. Or maybe the schema in your mind are irrationally preset in a certai way to interperet it badly. Like a muslim man finding out islam is closer to mormonism than math.
Generally, i suspect the hardwiring of humans would support the statement the creator did not want us to be aware of everything or to come to know everything.
The Cis-'Gender' Philosopher said:
Deal is right. Gender is a social construct. La la la. Dee dee dee.
The Cis-'Gender' Philosopher said:
Its a good life is the best analogy to israel I’ve ever seen. I am that drunk guy.
The Cis-'Gender' Philosopher said:
This is a parable about israel. Its unbelievably apt. Every single line almost.