I was at the beach with my crumbling copy of Arthur Jensen’s 1980 landmark book Bias in Mental Testing when a sentence on page 493 made me smile:
College GPA, in contrast to final grades in armed forces training schools, is probably almost as highly loaded on level II ability (after correction for attenuation) as are the predictive tests
Level II ability is mental ability that loads on g (the general factor of intelligence), such as abstract reasoning, conceptual ability etc, as opposed to Level I ability which is stuff like rote memory. Jensen believed that the working class and certain minorities were normal in level I ability but below average in Level II ability.
I have found that he SAT has a g loading of around 0.7 in the general U.S. population, and so Jensen’s comments implies college GPA has a g loading of almost 0.7 (corrected for attenuation) if we could drag all American young people into college, and the same college at that.
But what on Earth does he mean by corrected for attenuation? I would expect college grades to be more reliable than SAT scores given that they are based on many tests and assignments, not just one.
But perhaps the attenuation comes from the bias of the professors themselves. Just as different supreme court judges can reach different decisions about a case, different law professors will give the same essay an A or C depending on whether they agree with the legal arguments. And similarly for different English professors, depending on whether they agree with your literary tastes. So it’s this bias in scoring that largely makes college GPA a worse measure of intelligence than the college admission tests themselves.
One reason math and computer types tend to have higher IQs than the rest of us is not just that these subjects are more g loaded, but they’re also more objective. The computer program either runs or it doesn’t. Less room for bias on the professor’s part. Jealous of their ability, other students call computer geeks “autistic”, because unlike math or computers, you can seldom be proven wrong about your social intelligence because you can never get into someone else’s head and prove you correctly read their mind, so social IQ becomes an easy way for people to convince themselves that they’re smarter than computer geeks at something.
Back to Jensen’s quote: why did reading this make me smile? I’ve long been fascinated by the idea that smart people get to the top but I feared this was just a self-fulfilling prophecy of the testocracy we live in and says little about the intrinsic predictive power of the IQ itself.
But the fact that GPA is almost as g loaded as predictive tests means that even if we removed the testocracy (college admission tests), it would have little effect on who gets to the top in America, because the very act of learning the skills you need to function in elite occupations is itself almost as g loaded. The predictive power of IQ is not something society artificially created.
I have found that he SAT has a g loading of around 0.7 in the general U.S. population, and so Jensen’s comments implies college GPA has a g loading of almost 0.7 (corrected for attenuation) if we could drag all American young people into college, and the same college at that.
I’ve long suspected myself, that once you control for differences in difficulties between majors and between professors within majors, GPA is just as good if not superior to standardized tests in determing future success. Which is why I think a battery of AP exams would be better than the SAT/ACT for determing college admissions. Psychometricians have yet to identify any factors that significantly affect school success other than IQ and conscientiousness (which itself only explains about 10% of the variance in GPA), so I’m guessing the only thing that makes GPA better than IQ is that it measures C.
AP exams being better than the SAT/ACT because they correlate more strongly (I strongly suspect) with conscientiousness/GPA.
Not only that but as sailer has noted, if people are going to invest so much time studying for college admission tests, they might as well learn something useful
Really good point. I need to find where Sailer said that. Charles Murray more or less said the same thing.
With that said, there are some useful aspects to prepping for the ACT/SAT/GMAT/GRE/LSAT/etc.: the verbal portions are a good overview of the college-level vocab, and the math is a good review of basic geometry/algebra. Also I felt the LSAT helped me learn to identify logical fallacies in everyday writing/speech (which I think should be a big part of the so-called “critical reasoning” training that people receive from a liberal arts education).
““critical reasoning” training that people receive from a liberal arts education”.
Its very important for critical reasoning skills to be taught in liberal arts subjects. As we all know, liberal arts students are taught to make great critiques of western society and family and church and its important the younger generations are exposed or ‘woke’ to some really inconvenient truths about their behaviours.
Too bad there is bias in “mental testing,” contrary to Jensen’s claims.
once you control for enough made up shit everything is perfectly correlated with g.
—arthur densen
Who is jealous…?
Most types who are more VIQ or SIQ oriented give PIQ/MIQ/whatever types their due. The problem becomes PIQ/MIQ types attempting to talk about social dynamics or social issues or whatever and believing that because they have, in their mind, a ‘logical’ model of how things ought to work, that this is how it actually works or that their ideas are ones that should be followed.
that one joke muggy told about hitler and ‘me’ sort of explained it all.
there’s a consistent confusion between reality and statements about reality, i.e. social reality.
and you are confused.
Mug of Pee:
I was hoping to attract some intelligent commenters but somebody pulled some strings so once again I’m stuck with you.
G-man, who I respect, lobbied hard behind the scenes for your return.
You can thank a black man for saving your ass.
❤
and yet you appeared when I spoke.
“You can thank a black man for saving your ass.”
And we call all thank Martin Luther King for saving civilisation.
gman doesn’t exist. he’s you.
Your brain doesn’t exist
Put sum respeck on my name!
^You get respeck just for making that reference
Gman>afro in blackness
Thanks brah!
Pumpkin, all people who passed WAISC get the same questions, so the errors of measurement cancel out, and there is no impact on the predictive power.
GPA are calculated on many particular tests, errors of measurement can influence the correlation level among those tests, so they have to be attenuated of this unreliability.
It’s a pure statistic difference among an infered value (the GPA) and a predictive value. If you combine several GPA, from high school and college and graduate schools, you don’t have to attenuate because those values are predictive (and you ve got only 3).
I would say that you should also consider an attenuation for restriction of range because in most class exam, they’re is less than 30 people, so that lower the correlation .
Nothing to do with the quality (objective or subjective ) of the content 😀 i presume
Hope it’s useful. Then I don’t want don’t get into technical staff about how to attenuate but my message is already a bit nerdy 🤓
GPA are calculated on many particular tests, errors of measurement can influence the correlation level among those tests, so they have to be attenuated of this unreliability
But the predictive test (i.e. SAT) also has measurement error so that doesn’t explain why it’s more g loaded than GPA. That’s why i assumed the attenuation Jensen meant is scoring bias in GPA that’s not present on SATs
The attenuation is not linked to bias or dependant on the g load of each tests. It’s linked to the lack of similarities of variables you are measuring in order to infer the correlation. Through differents unsimilar tests, the correlation is being artificially diminished by measurements errors. When the test is only predictive, you don’t need to attenuate.You can go into the details about how it works by studying the regression dilution.
It’s just a technical point coming out heterogenity of tests, not linked to bias. It could be worth to look at it carefully, because it could helf refine lots of your (interesting) correlation estimates.
The attenuation is not linked to bias or dependant on the g load of each tests.
But correcting for attenuation increases the correlation with g (level II ability as Jensen called it)
It’s linked to the lack of similarities of variables you are measuring in order to infer the correlation. Through differents unsimilar tests, the correlation is being artificially diminished by measurements errors.
Yes, but my speculation is having different professors in each course with different biases, causes more unsimilarity between the submeasures (course grades) that are aggregated into GPA
When the test is only predictive, you don’t need to attenuate.
Jensen’s statement was only that GPA is almost as g loaded as the tests that predict GPA (i.e. SAT) when you correct GPA for attenuation. Not sure if the SAT’s use as a predictor is relevant to that specific statement, since it’s used to predict GPA not g.
It’s just a technical point coming out heterogenity of tests, not linked to bias. It could be worth to look at it carefully, because it could helf refine lots of your (interesting) correlation estimates.
Yes, the g loading of the subtests on the Wechsler go way up after correction for unreliability
Pumpkin we agree. I thought you ask about why Jensen asked for attenuation and my explanation is that he didn’t ask for it, it’s just that you have to attenuate in this case, even if the test were of outmost qualifity, because the errors impact the correlation, wich is not the case with similar variables. So it’s just comparing apples with apples.
And then of course attenuation increases the correlation score or better said reveals the true correlation who was masked by the errors.
So to put it differently, you were saying I wonder why Jensen thought he had to attenuate the GPA scores to get to a SAT level (without attenuation ) and resons could be because it’s lower or because teachers don’t have such quality exams or scoring as ETS, and my point is just because you have to, to get a fair comparison irrespective of the intrinsic quality of each procedure for purely statistical reason.
It’s a detail but it can be useful for you because you like regression analysis and I am sure you would master regression dilution perfectly if you study it a little bit (when you have time). You could use illustrations to see how different errors impact or not correlation in each case because you have more of a spatial mind.
My theory is that (g) is the degree to which the back and front brain can work together. I have a high (g) yet my vision and WM are poor. Spatial and Verbal are good. I always got A’s and B’s in math class and English / social studies. I can solve problems pretty well. But I’m on SSDI. Have psychotic features and a mood disorder. Lived environment/mental deprivation. Otherwise, I would be doing well. Well above average. 30 point above average. Was just traped because of my condition and age. But I’m getting better and wiser as I get older.
…is probably…
translation: i have no evidence but i love making shit up because i’m retarded. that’s why my name is densen.
comment redaction lets the terrorists win
I suspect that the reason STEM folks have higher IQs than humanities types is that STEM subjects are less intuitive for most people than the humanities and soft social sciences. If you look at IQ listed by college major, you can see that it is listed in almost rank order of intuitiveness.
Math requires more abstract reasoning than humanities & abstract reasoning very g loaded
Within the humanities I’ve always suspected foreign language majors were smarter, with Classics being the smartest (since they study formal Ancient Greek and Latin from a long time ago, making it somewhat more abstract). But even they can’t compete with math/computer engineering/chemical engineering/physics…
Which must be why the most g-loaded tests are VERBAL, right?
It goes
VOCAB
INFORMATION
COMPREHENSION
SIMILARITIES
The most g-loaded ‘math’ test is ARITHMATIC.
Sorry nerds…
On the traditional wechsler vocab was the most g loaded but on newer versions with new & more subtests & more sophisticated factor analytical techniques, figure weights & arithmetic are typically the most g loaded (both math related)
The g loading of arithmetic may have increased as people stopped memorizing multiplication & had to figure out the answer through reasoning
Vocab’s g loading may have decreased as americans have become fragmented into different subcultures that learn different words & as the Internet’s made it easy to look up definitions so we no longer have to infer meaning from context
Give a source.
Benson and colleagues showed that the Figure Weights, Visual Puzzles, and Cancellation’s loadings on the general factor were 0.78, 0.68, and 0.37, respectively [1]. Figure Weight’s g loading was the highest of all of the 15 WAIS-IV subtests and the next highest loading subtests included Arithmetic (0.75), Vocabulary (0.74), and Similarities and Block Design (both at 0.70). The lowest loading subtest in the WAIS-IV is Cancellation at 0.37, and it is construed as primarily a measure of processing speed. The Cancellation subtest should theoretically also constitute a good means of assessing visual field neglect. Visual field neglect can adversely affect any number of higher-order cognitive functions. Also of interest was that Block Design has been supplanted by Figure Weights in the WAIS-IV as the highest loading nonverbal subtest
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3263563/
figure weights 130
arithmetic 105
math score 769
I can be good at math if I study.
Then why isn’t figure weights in the general ability index?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale#The_Non-Verbal_Performance_Scale
“The GAI is an optional index score for the WISC-IV and the WAIS-IV. The GAI is derived from the core Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning subtests. The GAI provides an estimate of general intellectual ability”
Because 1) they probably didn’t know how g loaded it was when the index was created, 2) figure weights is considered unreliable for those older than 69, 3) figure weights might not be a strong enough measure of perceptual reasoning to be part of the PR index which is part of the GAI index
The GAI was created because in order to qualify as learning disabled, there must be a large IQ > scholastic aptitude gap, however a lot of people who do bad in school do bad on figure weights because it involves math reasoning, working memory etc, so in order for these people to have a large IQ > scholastic aptitude gap, they had to calculate IQ without using figure weights and other tests the learning disabled suck at. Hence the GAI.
figure weights is quantitative reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale#Index_scores_and_scales
definition:
By one definition, quantitative reasoning (QR) is the application of basic mathematics skills, such as algebra, to the analysis and interpretation of real-world quantitative information in the context of a discipline or an interdisciplinary problem to draw conclusions that are relevant to students in their daily lives.
Amusing and weird idea. Maybe RR could say JustSo without missing completely the point. If I understand it :
Size for vocabulary was linked to reasoning, inferring meaning from context, and it’s now linked to rote memory. So the g loading went down.
But as people don’t memorize arithmetic rules, g loading goes up, beacause they have to reason, wich is the opposite effect to vocab.
The difference maybe explained by the circumstance that reasoning in numbers never make you memorize the number operation contrary to reasoning for sentences wich gives you vocab (why not ….)
The problem is that if the choice between reasoning and looking for the answer in the dictionary is linked to the practicality of it, the most intelligent people would reason and memorize the more, and the g loading for vocab would have gone up (and the average sd raw score would have gone up a lot).
So it’s not really an explanation ….
But the general underlying principal would be that the more crystallized intelligence people have, the higher their g is in a average, despite rote memory being the less correlated mental ability with g. And that looks reasonable.
Philosophy is number 2, but if you aren’t autistically retarded its common sense is what someone I know would say, if he were to comment.
But just to be clear I am only saying what he would say, and do not have any opinion on this topic myself.
In fact I think ‘IQ’ is a social construction.
Lol Phil’s parody is really hitting its stride; “I think…”
And going by SAT score, we can see that being well-rounded takes the cake…
…and that while physics and math are ahead of English and social sciences…it’s a pretty close spread.
same here, with a YUGE (sarcasm) 5 point spread between physical sciences and humanities…
the reason…
…people aren’t that impressed…
…is because the difference isn’t that impressive.
my guess is that real differences probably do show up at the PhD level because the true high ability VIQ types ARE NOT PhDs — they’re too busy…
..
…
RUNNING.
THE.
WORLD.
A lot of math types run the world: high tech billionaires, investment bankers, the federal reserve, genetic engineers, currency manipulators, nuclear scientists, computer hackers, china.
And a lot of the non-math types have social IQ more than verbal IQ
Half the people you listed aren’t world leading types (nuclear scientists, genetic engineers, lol). The other people I would agree have the math chops but it’s their verbal chops that secure them dominance.
If you can have both, have both. If you can only have one…well…
Actually, it depends.
If you can only have one at 1 SD above the populous, choose math.
2 SD, choose verbal.
Nuclear engineers run the world in the sense that they have the power to decide whether a country gets nuclear weapons or not. The fact that several Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated shows how much of a threat they’re considered to be. Geneticists run the world in the sense that they have the power to decide the future of cloning and eugenics, which will revolutionize humanity, possibly turning us into a different species. They also influence whether we believe in HBD.
I have 121 math 132 verbal (1.4 SD and 2.13 SD)
Nuclear engineers run the world in the sense that they have the power to decide whether a country gets nuclear weapons or not
Lol no they don’t.
If you put a nuclear engineer in the middle of the desert, that geographic location most likely will also not get nuclear weapons.
INFRASTRUCTURE is necessary.
Politicians, leaders, etc. decide 99.999999% of that. The remaining portion involves having a brain that understands how to build nuclear weapons.
Geneticists run the world in the sense that they have the power to decide the future of cloning and eugenics, which will revolutionize humanity,
Lol eugenics already took root in the world before DNA was even a thing.
Once again, rhetoricians and ideologues are what decide how far ‘science’ goes, what ‘science’ is, and even who can be considered a ‘scientist.’
Beliefs and the populous are not controlled by anything even remotely related to science.
if you went back in time to the 1940s and killed just 6 Nobel prize winning scientists, Germany would have arguably gotten the nuclear bomb before the U.S. and the course of history would have changed dramatically. So scientists do play a decisive role in history; not as decisive as U.S. presidents, but certainly in the top one hundred. 99% of politicians are replaceable but extreme technical skill, not so much.
Don’t philosophy majors have the highest test scores?
Science is a group effort. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
all fields are a group effort, but the top scientists are orders of magnitude more productive than average scientists. People like newton took their fields in radically different directions.
Newton used the work of others to formulate his theory. Thanks for making my point for me.
everyone uses the work of others to do their work.
So science doesn’t work in a vacuum, thusly proving my point.
but it’s a pointless point
Why?
if you went back in time to the 1940s and killed just 6 Nobel prize winning scientists, Germany would have arguably gotten the nuclear bomb before the U.S. and the course of history would have changed dramatically.
LOL!
The theoretics of Einstein et al were ALMOST IRRELEVANT to the entire program!
The Manhattan Project succeeded because the U.S. had a TON OF MONEY and GRUNTS; also, they got a little lucky.
So scientists do play a decisive role in history
The tip top of the tippy top scientists sort of play a role in history — probably on par with the average politician.
99% of politicians are replaceable
So are 99% of scientists…
you’re comparing the apex of one with the average of another.
The theoretics of Einstein et al were ALMOST IRRELEVANT to the entire program!
Who said anything about Einstein?
The tip top of the tippy top scientists sort of play a role in history — probably on par with the average politician.
I disagree. Most politicians are so beholden to their campaign contributors and the media that they’re essentially puppets. It’s the contributors who are influential and a good number of them are math IQ > verbal IQ (i.e. investment bankers, tech billionaires). That’s why Trump got elected. Because nothing much was changing regardless of whether a Dem or Repub was in office, so people wanted the rare politician who would shake things up because he was independently wealthy. Even members of the supreme court are largely puppets, unless they’re rare swing vote types like Justice Kennedy
you’re comparing the apex of one with the average of another
That’s cause politician itself is an apex group unless you’re including mayors of small towns.
I’m not saying math people have more influence than verbal people; just saying they have a substantial chunk of the influence.
Test scores of incoming students mean nothing. Look up GRE scores by intended grad major. The differences are more stark.
Most politicians are so beholden to their campaign contributors and the media that they’re essentially puppets.
In the sense that they have to balance competing interests and come with strings attached sure…
…in the sense that their job takes no skill (whether the skill is for good or ill), definitely not.
Unless you think someone like Oprah is just a puppet to her sponsors…
…it’s really not much of a difference.
That’s cause politician itself is an apex group unless you’re including mayors of small towns.
Yes, I agree…it, as a group is apex. Unlike the other group we’re talking about. That’s the whole point, really.
If you take the apex of politicians and leaders vs. the apex of scientists, you’d get like a Jesus vs…..well, really, it’s no contest still regardless of who you pick.
I’m not saying math people have more influence than verbal people; just saying they have a substantial chunk of the influence.
The extent to which they have that influence comes from their VIQ/SIQ chops, though. That’s the point. Bill Gates is NOT Bill Gates because of his computer/math savvy. No successful tech nerd is either. We both know this.
Look up GRE scores by intended grad major. The differences are more stark.
not really
http://philosophy.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/GRE-Scores-by-Intended-Major-Field-utoronto-philosophy.pdf
In the sense that they have to balance competing interests and come with strings attached sure…
…in the sense that their job takes no skill (whether the skill is for good or ill), definitely not.
In the sense that if they were never born, the rich would just elect someone else who would push the same agenda. It’s like being an actor. Acting requires a skill, but you’re a puppet for whoever wrote the script.
Unless you think someone like Oprah is just a puppet to her sponsors…
But the difference is only about 25% of a one hour talk show is commercials. By contrast maybe 75% of a typical politician’s policy decisions are dictated by lobbyists.
If you take the apex of politicians and leaders vs. the apex of scientists, you’d get like a Jesus vs…..well, really, it’s no contest still regardless of who you pick.
Jesus was more a religious leader than a political one, and his genius was probably social IQ not verbal.
The extent to which they have that influence comes from their VIQ/SIQ chops, though. That’s the point. Bill Gates is NOT Bill Gates because of his computer/math savvy. No successful tech nerd is either. We both know this.
So it’s just a coincidence that a guy with a perfect math SAT and the top computer student Harvard became so rich in computers? No causal connection? He’s successful because of verbal and social? Have you seen Gates in an interview? He has a strange voice tone and very awkward hand gestures. Unlike pill I don’t think he’s autistic, but he certainly comes across as such:
Verbal IQ is probably more important, but I suspect math IQ is almost as important, independently of verbal IQ.
I heard someone say once that people with math IQ tend to be more autistic and therefore beholden to people. As well all now, the highest VIQ group is the jews. But both Swanky and Puppy are wrong in that intelligence of either sort per se gets them power. My friend says its particular personality traits that certain groups have, like psychopathy. But I must say I disagree strongly with him and agree with pumpkin that terry tao decides the fate of the universe.
“Most politicians are so beholden to their campaign contributors and the media that they’re essentially puppets.”
Are scientists?
Not as much. There’s no corporate or ethnic interest group lobbying scientists to decode the Neanderthal genome or to clone primates for example.
I’m talking about all science. And people decoding the Neanderthal genome or cloning primates are scientists; most social “scientists” are just psychologists who think they can play dress-up and call themselves “behavioral geneticists”.
There’s a difference between genomic science and “social ‘science'”.
Do you think those who accepted Pioneer Fund funding were “beholden to their campaign contributors” so much so “that they’re essentially puppets”?
(But that assumes that social “scientists” are scientists.)
In the sense that if they were never born, the rich would just elect someone else who would push the same agenda.
The same applies to any scientist, so, eh…ok?
But the difference is only about 25% of a one hour talk show is commercials. By contrast maybe 75% of a typical politician’s policy decisions are dictated by lobbyists.
That 1/4th of Oprah’s actual show is commercials != 1/4th of her decisions being dictated by her lobbyists, so the analogy doesn’t even stand on its own terms.
Jesus was more a religious leader than a political one, and his genius was probably social IQ not verbal.
Oh pumpkin. Religion = primitive politics. DOY!
And lol, to MAKE IT you need SIQ, to LEAD you need SIQ + VIQ because that requires BUILDING A SYSTEM OF IDEAS.
So it’s just a coincidence that a guy with a perfect math SAT and the top computer student Harvard became so rich in computers? No causal connection?
It’s not a coincidence. His technical skill gave him great raw insight because he was able to understand a lot of concepts that others were not and so were unable to capitalize upon, but his ability to maneuver socially/business acumen gave him his wealth.
And oral communication != VIQ or SIQ. That’s different. Bill Gates is probably lucky that most of his audiences can listen to ideas and content in speech, i.e. a crowd with a high IQ, because IF his chosen demographic were lower IQ, those traits you pointed out would probably hinder him a lot.
Verbal IQ is probably more important, but I suspect math IQ is almost as important, independently of verbal IQ.
For building bridges and the raw stuff of science it’s NO CONTEST that math IQ is supremely important.
For leading people and influencing and directing it’s NO CONTEST that verbal is supremely important.
In the ether, neither of these is inherently more valuable than the other. My only point here is that the enterprise of leading people and directing them, which has a lot of currency in an alleged ‘capitalist’ society, is an activity that rewards VIQ and SIQ.
In technical fields, when you have a leader who doesn’t fully understand concepts that go into the company’s products or the industry, that’s a problem. In fields concerned with managing people, when you have a leader who can’t relate to people on their levels or understand their particular needs and figure out a way to communicate (via raw content, not talking about non-verbal communication), that’s a problem.
Both problems happen a lot. The first one probably happens more often in this society.
The same applies to any scientist, so, eh…ok?
But the difference is top scientists typically follow their own agenda, while top politicians are often puppets for the agenda of some socially liberal libertarian investment banker. So in both technology and public policy, it’s often the high math IQ people who are running the world.
That 1/4th of Oprah’s actual show is commercials != 1/4th of her decisions being dictated by her lobbyists, so the analogy doesn’t even stand on its own terms.
Oprah’s power came primarily from what she broadcast on the air. A politician’s power comes primarily from the legislation they pass. So if a politician surrenders twice as much of their legislation to lobbyists as Oprah surrenders airtime to advertisers, they are twice as much of a puppet, though I agree that both are kept on a short leash to some degree.
Oh pumpkin. Religion = primitive politics. DOY!
For Jesus, not so much:
Jesus was, for the most part, apolitical. There were a number of political factions in his time, yet there is no evidence that he joined or even endorsed any of them. He emphasized the “Kingdom of God” over the kingdom of man, and heaven over earth, and his central message was to love God and to love one another.
When Time magazine lists the most influential people of all time, Jesus is usually lumped in the “heroes and icons” section, while politicians are placed in the “leaders and revolutionaries” section.
And lol, to MAKE IT you need SIQ, to LEAD you need SIQ + VIQ because that requires BUILDING A SYSTEM OF IDEAS.
High math IQ people help build and manipulate our economic systems and technological communication systems so they run the world too.
It’s not a coincidence. His technical skill gave him great raw insight because he was able to understand a lot of concepts that others were not and so were unable to capitalize upon, but his ability to maneuver socially/business acumen gave him his wealth.
I don’t think you can draw such simple lines in the sand. All successful people draw on multiple abilities, but if verbal ability were vastly more important to running the world than math ability, then the most influential people would on average have a huge verbal IQ > math IQ gap. I don’t think they do.
And oral communication != VIQ or SIQ. That’s different.
Well verbal IQ probably isn’t a unitary construct, since reading comprehension is different from writing composition which is different from speaking off the cuff. Meanwhile the social IQ needed to learn the right tone of voice and body language is probably different from the social IQ needed to pick business partners or work as a political consultant. But I agree with you than Gates would do extremely well on a conventional test of verbal IQ, though he’d do even better at math.
My only point here is that the enterprise of leading people and directing them, which has a lot of currency in an alleged ‘capitalist’ society, is an activity that rewards VIQ and SIQ.
I was only objecting to your statement that verbal IQ runs the world, by pointing out a lot of math types do too, at least in the age of big data, hedge funds and high tech. Of course this period could be historically anomalous.
Pumpkin, I’d love to think that geniuses are irreplaceable, but even missing 18 geniuses, German project UranVerein wasn’t finished sooner than USA because of 1) missing uranium material 2) distrust of government and lack of funding 3) Better spying operations from the British and the french.
True, if Hitler had killed all jewish physician in 1933, USA would never had the bomb to use against the japanese. But the german wouldn’t have it either to save them. It was really management (and access to resource, but wich can be solved by management) that made the difference … If Germany had never had the jews at all, it’s an open question to know if their science would have been as good. It’s an open question for me till now. The same for today’s USA. How much jewish intelligence is creative or parasitic is difficult to tell.
I don’t know neither if management is more linked to verbal and math or spatial intelligence. It’s probably a bit of both. Theory of management is certainly verbal. Practical management improvement is more spatial.
True, if Hitler had killed all jewish physician in 1933, USA would never had the bomb to use against the japanese.
Close enough. Scientists change the trajectory of history is my only point.
No. The VERY TOP SCIENTISTS change the trajectory of history and ONLY WHEN AND BECAUSE they get the ATTENTION of world leaders.
To be frank, science only has any meaningful impact via technology, and technology — the developments that matter — are half (optimistic) due to chance.
To date the biggest achievement of physical science has been classical mechanics. Most everything since hasn’t had much practical relevance.
No. The VERY TOP SCIENTISTS change the trajectory of history and ONLY WHEN AND BECAUSE they get the ATTENTION of world leaders
And world leaders only have influence because top scientists created the technology that gives their countries power. Without scientists, world leaders are leading stone age tribes, not global superpowers.
WRONG.
What gives countries power is MONEY. ALWAYS MONEY.
Coordinating communities and directing them to produce WEALTH = POWER.
Greece had steam power from its top scientists and it meant…
NOTHING.
Why?
Because the COORDINATION was not there.
The world works as I say it does. Now and forever at least for today.
Without science money is just paper.
Hell, without science, there’s not even paper.
An outright lie.
What makes money money is ideology, i.e. IDEAS.
And you’re confusing technology with science. Technology doesn’t need scientific theory to proceed.
Why does anyone make paper?
Who directs the people to do anything, who gives them the why beyond basic human need? Who makes the requirements for scientist, artisan, etc.?
These are all social constructs…not scientific ones.
Science guys should thank the VIQ guys. Without the VIQ people, the rest of the world would just see you as nerds and think the gadgets you made were stupid (again see e.g. Greece).
The reverence people have for scientists does not come from scientists.
Damn right I’m lumping in technology with STEM fields
So when the bow and arrow transformed the nature of paleolithic warfare, you give the credit to the chief of the tribe who said “go do something useful” for directing the group, rather than the genius who actually invented the bow and arrow?
I think you’re just mad because you work in a profession many people consider parasitic. I personally think lawyers are extremely useful, though perhaps not as useful as scientists. I’m neither so I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m a freak not a geek 🙂
you give the credit to the chief of the tribe who said “go do something useful” for directing the group, rather than the genius who actually invented the bow and arrow?
Both deserve credit. But…if the group would not have noticed but for the chief, who constructed a social reality where the bow and arrow was something useful and the genius was someone to be credited, well…who even created the concept of giving the genius any due at all?
I think you’re just mad
Oh, there you go again with your Oprah conversation tactics.
I think you’re just riding high because…
Both deserve credit.
Exactly my point
If you could add another subtest to the wais what would you add and why?
In my opinion, AP exams and SAT/ACT scores are the best way to test a person’s level of education, but IQ is somewhat different. An uneducationed person in the jungle can be born with a higher IQ than someone who ends up with a doctorate. Back to education though, most certainly standardized testing and APs give a more accurate representation of one’s knowledge and intelligence.