Commenter pumpkinhead made a series of points about Donald Trump’s IQ that I thought were worth responding to in a new article.
1. SAT scores correlate highly with IQ, I believe the correlation is around 0.86. There are SAT to IQ conversion charts online. So using that as a metric we can work out his IQ based on the Wharton school minimum SAT requirements. It is not clear what his score is or whether he even has any but he did gain entry(albeit as a transfer student) which is one more piece of “evidence” in his favor.
2. According to this, https://www.iqmindware.com/blog/the-bell-curve-cognitive-elites/
the average IQ of the top 12 universities in the country is around 142.
The 142 figure is from The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. It’s based on the fact that elite school students scored 2.8 standard deviations above the general U.S. population on the verbal SAT, which equates to 142 on the IQ scale. For years I’ve argued that this is a massive overestimate because you get a selection bias effect when you measure the IQs of a group by the very test used to select them. Thus I was happy to see that buried in the notes on page 712 of The Bell Curve, they state that the correlation between verbal SAT and IQ is 0.65, and so students from elite schools should regress about a third of the way to the mean. This would reduce them from +2.8 SD to 0.65(+2.8 SD) = +1.82 SD or IQ 127. And that’s more or less what we see in a study of Harvard and Dartmouth students.
Now there are studies where the SAT correlates much higher with official IQ tests or g (general intelligence) in academically homogenous samples, but if you gave the SAT to all U.S. 17-year-olds (including high school dropouts with no test prep & little interest or knowledge in algebra) the g loading might drop a lot.
Of course in Trump’s case, the SAT would be a valid proxy for his IQ if it were discovered randomly, but the average SAT of elite students in general is an inflated IQ proxy because the only reason we know their average score on the SAT (and not some other test) is precisely because they did well enough to get into an elite school; thus it’s not a random sample of their ability and thus we use regression to predict their score on a random test.
3. He is a billionaire, albeit with a good head start but he has basically multiplied his bankroll/inheritance 100x over in his lifetime. That is nothing to scoff at especially since a lot of people squander their entire inheritance in their lifetime.
Just yesterday The New York Times reported that Trump was given $413 million in today’s money from his father. As of Oct 3. 2018, Forbes estimates his real time net worth to be $3.1 billion so I’d say he multiplied his inheritance by 7.5 times. That’s still quite impressive, but nowhere near 100 times.
4. He comes from the cutthroat business/real estate world AND he managed to become a successful entertainment personality. In retrospect it all may have played into his long term plan to win the presidency. This may be more a testament to his grit and social status/contacts but if by some happenstance it is easy to get in(entertainment & business worlds), i’m pretty sure it is exceedingly hard to stay in, a certain level of intelligence is a must. Any way you slice it though, that is no small feat.
I’ll grant him that. I define intelligence as the cognitive ability to adapt (turn situations to your advantage) and there’s virtually no public figure who has made it to the top in three completely different domains (real-estate, media, and politics).
But at the same time, because there are so many factors that can influence life outcomes, the correlation between IQ and worldly success (money, power, status) is only moderate (0.5 at the most) and Trump had a huge head-start.
His father was one of the 400 richest Americans (and self-made) and such people average IQs around 132, which means their kids have IQs around 116 (assuming about a 0.5 correlation between father and child). His father was about 4.73 standard deviations above average in money (one in a million level) and given the 0.47 correlation between father and son income in the U.S., we’d expect Trump to have been 4.73(0.47) = +2.37 SD in income (and perhaps worldly success in general). Instead, as both a multi-billionaire and a President, he’s arguably the most successful of all 215 million American adults (age 25+) and thus +5.73 SD in worldly success, which is 3 SD higher than expected.
Given a 0.5 correlation between IQ and worldly success and assuming it applies within social classes, that would give him an expected IQ that is 3 SD(0.5) = 1.5 SD above that of other trust fund babies (average IQ 116) and thus IQ 139.
5. Interviews from when he was younger reveal a much more linguistically and cognitively adept individual. His fluid intelligence has taken a hit with age but that is to be expected. IMO certain aspects of his working memory took the biggest hit.
Indeed, which is why although his biggest accomplishment (becoming president) came in old age, I would only apply the above IQ estimate to his younger years. Given the imperfect stability of IQ over the life time, his current score could be wildly different (even adjusting for age).
6. He won the presidency as a complete outsider, going up against the media, corporate, and deep state favorite during a time of “first black”, “first female”(what’s next, first gay?) national infatuation(very un-meritocratic but i’m glad logic prevailed). In my view that is unheard of in the last 100 years, or maybe ever in US politics.
He certainly showed incredible adaptability in becoming President. Being President? Not so much.
7. The reason I give him a high math/visual IQ is because he seems to be the sort of person that thinks in pictures. People that think in images formulate their thoughts in that way and then try to put words to those images. If their verbal is not too high and old age has impacted their working memory even further, they struggle to find the words while the conceptualizing may be stellar. They then try to make up for this and convey their competence(of which they are internally sure of) in a braggadocious way. Of course not all big ego types are of this sort, one has to look at all the evidence…which is found in the obvious competence it would take to gain a degree in business from Wharton, a degree that leans far more into math/logical and visual acuity than it does linguistic.
8. In any case I think that his greatest asset is his interpersonal intelligence a must for any business/real estate entrepreneur let alone a president of the US. This won’t be measured by any IQ test but given the high correlation between respective facets of intelligence it is not much of a stretch to think that the underlying cognitive foundation that allows one to excel in one area can lend itself to facilitating excellence in other areas too(though admittedly this is not a strict rule).
So using all the above I would say there is enough evidence to safely say that he is more likely >125 than he is <125. I’ve settled at 140(a far cry from the reported 156) and while I admit I may be wrong, I doubt I am wrong by much. So peak 140, current 130.
I can agree with a peak IQ of 140. A current IQ of 130 sounds way too generous (even adjusting for age) in my humble opinion but anything’s possible. Let’s see if he’s smart enough to get re-elected.
He would have an IQ definitely above 110.I think no one can handle the cognitive load that comes with the presidency, with an IQ less than 110.
I would normally agree (id guess 105-110 is the threshold for a manager in any middle class or above career path). But Trump is so fucking weird….I don’t know what to think.
This presidency has been a letdown for me so far because I didn’t really think Trump would be this much of distraction. With that said, I would put Trump’ s IQ around 120–smart enough to graduate with a Finance degree from Ivy League (intro to Corporate Finance and Accounting are no joke– both require at least an IQ of 100–or whatever is required to master Algebra 2). But dumb enough so that he doesn’t seem capable or willing to dial back his narcissism to get shit done and not be a fucking embarrassment (of course, the media isn’t helping the situation).
Also take into account that Trumps likely high impulsivity would make it pretty hard to make it thru school, unless he had a decent IQ. Unless you believe the professors just gave him good grades.
serious IQ test question:
rank the following 15 people in order of sexiness and in order of evilness.
mr rogers
ted bundy
oprah
hitler
the BTK guy
robert gabriel mugabe
al bundy
hawkeye pierce
yourself
captain kangaroo
stalin
ingrid bergman
queen elizabeth II
pol pot
genghis khan
The sexiest is me and the most evil is Hitler, followed by Genghis Khan, Stalin and pol pot.
clues to my IQ test question:
1. the most evil person is canadian.
2. the sexiest person is me.
Puppy do you have a photgraphic memory? How do you remember the exact page number of the footnote like that? Or do you actually go home, and re-read whole sections just to have a reference for a blog post?
I was already at home & when i know a claim is controversial, I’ll go to the trouble of getting the book off the shelf & looking for the exact page i read something.
pumpkinperson
Did you delete one of my comments? An entire reply I posted to Winfrey is no longer there.
Not intentionally. I’ll take a look.
It ended up in the spam folder somehow. Should be showing up now.
Oh OK it’s back now, I thought I might have said something that crossed the line. I’ve tried to refrain from responding to his ad hom attacks but he keeps coming at me quite aggressively. Not sure if he’s all there.
He’s certainly very passionate. 🙂 I did intentionally moderate a couple of his comments because they were too emotional/repetitive but yours ended up in spam either because i pressed the wrong button or wordpress automatically flagged it as spam.
OK thanks for clarifying. I don’t mind passion or even repetition, I can be passionate and repetitive myself if I think that my point hasn’t adequately hit the mark or hasn’t properly registered or as a necessary reminder in aid of properly fleshing out my point. I even don’t mind the attacks but what does irritate me is when someone tells me that I’m wrong when I’m mostly right and what they should be saying is that I’m not absolutely right or here’s another thing that contributes that you did not mention. It looks to me that he is being antagonistic or is arguing for the sake of arguing(quite badly if you ask me).
He also looks to have a particular political bent(hard leftist) and has perceived me as the “evil” right winger that needs to be taken down a peg. It’s funny cause I don’t have any strong political leanings(this is the one area in which I do think labels are bad, primarily because of their misuse and because they are often weaponized). If you twisted my arm, I would say that on an abstract absolute ideological scale, I’m actually just left of center, but I have no problem calling a spade a spade(no racist connotations). In any case, I don’t mind cognitive egalitarianism(everyone has the capacity for profound thought/ideas/insight yada yada yada), in fact I think it’s a good thing, primarily because I think on some level it is true. But when we’re talking about large scale generalized concepts, or things that have specific definitions, I just call it as it is, even if in some people’s minds it throws a spanner in the works with the particular narrative they want to push. In other words, to me, facts are facts, they have nothing to do with social reform. Reality is reality, it isn’t what i want or would like it to be, it just is, and shouldn’t be tampered with in order to bring about some perceived desired outcome.
pumpkinperson
“Just yesterday The New York Times reported that Trump was given $413 million in today’s money from his father. As of Oct 3. 2018, Forbes estimates his real time net worth to be $3.1 billion so I’d say he multiplied his inheritance by 7.5 times. That’s still quite impressive, but nowhere near 100 times.”
Well according to this NYT article from 2005 he only inherited 35 million.
So which NYT is right. Well first of all I would argue at this point we need to take anything the NYT says about Trump with a grain of salt. Another report puts Fred Trump’s wealth at 250-300 million at the time of his death in 1999. We don’t know how much of that he got or how the money was divided, some reports give a 20 million inheritance for Trump. Regardless lets’s take the 35 million figure as the correct inheritance in 1999. With a 70% inflation this puts his inheritance at about 60 million. Of course we do not know how many loans he took from his father’s business, he claims 1 million, it is likely more than that. So for argument’s sake lets just say that his initial bankroll averages out at about 100 million(not 35 as was my initial assumption). 3.1 billion divided by 100 milllion gives us a 31x multiplier. Not 100x but still incredibly impressive. In fact I would argue that less than 0.1% of people manage such a feat.
As for the SAT/IQ correlation I’ve seen several figures floating around 0.86, 0.82 etc Don’t have the time to do in depth research however I’m extremely skeptical of the notion that the average IQ of ivy league universities being in the 120s. 120 minimum, yes I’ll accept that but 120 average? Not likely, by this assumption we shouldn’t be surprised if we found people in Ivy league universities with a 110 IQ. I don’t know, that seems incredibly low in my view. Maybe for some ridiculous subject like film studies or comparative religions or whatnot but not with respectable degrees. I would be incredibly surprised if anyone in STEM fields in ivy league universities scored lower than 130. Average 140+! Also why do you put so much emphasis on verbal IQ as a metric of overall intelligence as per your reliance of it’s correlation to SAT scores(0.65)? Surely there is a lot more to it than that…?
“Given a 0.5 correlation between IQ and worldly success and assuming it applies within social classes, that would give him an expected IQ that is 3 SD(0.5) = 1.5 SD above that of other trust fund babies (average IQ 116) and thus IQ 139”
Well it seems that we are more in agreement here than I thought!
“He certainly showed incredible adaptability in becoming President. Being President? Not so much.”
Well I guess that depends on your interpretation and in large part dictated by your political leanings. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a big fan of Trump(never was) but compared to the alternative(Clinton) he is far superior. Note that I was a life long supporter of the Democrats.
“A current IQ of 130 sounds way too generous (even adjusting for age) in my humble opinion but anything’s possible. Let’s see if he’s smart enough to get re-elected.”
Right, well, I’m going to hold strong on the 130, I think the pressure he is under must be immense so I’m willing to forgive a few blunders here and there(mostly linguistic). I mean which president or candidate has a squeaky clean track record, optics, composure, delivery, and image. Apart for the other worldly image management/delivery of Bill Clinton and Obama I think most presidents were as imperfect as one would expect for such a high pressure position. He still has yet to finish his second year. Improvement is in the cards even though he is getting up there in years.
As for the SAT/IQ correlation I’ve seen several figures floating around 0.86, 0.82 etc Don’t have the time to do in depth research however I’m extremely skeptical of the notion that the average IQ of ivy league universities being in the 120s. 120 minimum, yes I’ll accept that but 120 average? Not likely, by this assumption we shouldn’t be surprised if we found people in Ivy league universities with a 110 IQ.
Forget 110. We find people at even the best Ivy League university (Harvard) with IQs below 100. As I’ve mentioned there was a study by Harvard professor Shelley H Carson and Jordan Peterson who gave an abbreviated version of the WAIS-R to 86 Harvard undergraduates and found their IQs ranged from 97 to 148 with a mean of 128. But because the WAIS-R norms were couple decades old, these scores would have likely been inflated by several points (at least at the low end, at the high end they might have been deflated by ceiling bumping), so I’d say at least 1% of the undergrads at elite schools have IQs below 95, at least in non-STEM fields (who are probably more likely to volunteer for such studies).
I don’t know, that seems incredibly low in my view.
It sounds incredibly low because so many IQs get wildly exaggerated or cherry-picked that realistic numbers seem way too low by comparison. A member of Prometheus once said that over the years he met several people who supposedly had IQs above 170. His estimate for the actual IQ of these people? About 115. I’ve had the same experience.
IQ inflation is rampant, especially in the internet age, where everyone and their mother has a genius IQ.
Maybe for some ridiculous subject like film studies or comparative religions or whatnot but not with respectable degrees. I would be incredibly surprised if anyone in STEM fields in ivy league universities scored lower than 130. Average 140+!
I don’t know, 140 is extremely high. Even Field Medalist Richard Borcherds and Harvard prodigy Ted Kaczynski did not crack the 140 mark when professionally tested as adults on the WAIS-R (which includes both verbal & non-verbal reasoning) . Of course both men are mentally ill so they’re not the best sample.
Also why do you put so much emphasis on verbal IQ as a metric of overall intelligence as per your reliance of it’s correlation to SAT scores(0.65)? Surely there is a lot more to it than that…?
In the book The Bell Curve, all the analysis was based on verbal SAT, presumably because they thought the math SAT was too influenced by math practice to make a good IQ proxy.
pumpkinperson
Also by my calculations only 1 in 250 first year college students go to elite Universities. Even if we assume that only half of those are cognitive elites(ie social class and other factors affecting enrollment) this implies that elite universities at a bare minimum get the best intellect out of every 125 first year students. This gives them an IQ of 137(minimum) and this is before we even factor in the obvious exclusion of extremely low IQ individuals (<83) or people with mental or other health issues. I think I'm going to double down on the original findings and conventional wisdom regarding the correlation of IQ with SAT scores.
Also by my calculations only 1 in 250 first year college students go to elite Universities. Even if we assume that only half of those are cognitive elites(ie social class and other factors affecting enrollment) this implies that elite universities at a bare minimum get the best intellect out of every 125 first year students. This gives them an IQ of 137(minimum) and this is before we even factor in the obvious exclusion of extremely low IQ individuals (<83) or people with mental or other health issues.
If only one in 250 get in, then all elite students are at least +2.66 SD in academic success, and the median elite student is perhaps +2.87 SD (one in 500 level) in academic success. But since the correlation between IQ and academic success is only about 0.55, we’d expect their average IQ to be +2.87(0.55) = +1.58 SD or IQ 124 which is consistent with their actual scores on the WAIS in a few studies (their scores on the SAT are way higher, but they were selected by the SAT so by definition they did well on that, making it a biased measure for them in my opinion).
I think I’m going to double down on the original findings and conventional wisdom regarding the correlation of IQ with SAT scores.
That’s fine. I always welcome dissenting views!
“A member of Prometheus once said that over the years he met several people who supposedly had IQs above 170. His estimate for the actual IQ of these people? About 115. I’ve had the same experience.”
Interesting, well before I bore you with my own thoughts on IQ over one’s lifetime, clearly there are a lot of people talking shit out there. We all know this, everyone is a genius in their own mind. I think that a lot of people experience a massive drop in their IQ over their lifetime due to bad health, drugs, alcohol, stress, misfortune, all put a dent on IQ over time. And that is before we consider the ridiculous practice of people citing their childhood IQ as a measure of their adult intelligence(Marylin Vos Savant being the most ridiculous example). However statistically speaking roughly 3 million Americans will have an IQ of 135 or more. That is a lot of people, 40 thousand of which will be first year college students, the best of which will go to elite schools(20k in fact). So there’s plenty to go round. My question is why wouldn’t the top schools get the absolute top talent? The fees alone act as a tremendous screening process for those that are either ill equipped or won’t take things seriously. I doubt any parent would spent 50k a year if their child is clearly not smart enough even if they have millions. While at the same time I don’t think Harvard would risk damaging their reputation by admitting all the dummy trust fund babies. After all the fees are fixed and there are only so many available positions. 50k is 50k whether it comes from a millionaire or a middle class family. Donations surely matter but is it really that much, perhaps 3-4 per academic year…?
“Forget 110. We find people at even the best Ivy League university (Harvard) with IQs below 100. As I’ve mentioned there was a study by Harvard professor Shelley H Carson and Jordan Peterson who gave an abbreviated version of the WAIS-R to 86 Harvard undergraduates and found their IQs ranged from 97 to 148 with a mean of 128. But because the WAIS-R norms were couple decades old, these scores would have likely been inflated by several points (at least at the low end, at the high end they might have been deflated by ceiling bumping), so I’d say at least 1% of the undergrads at elite schools have IQs below 95, at least in non-STEM fields (who are probably more likely to volunteer for such studies).”
OK Well had a look at the figures you provided regarding the Peterson study. I’m sorry but I find that far from conclusive.
33 men and 53 women is far from a reliable sample. The oversampling of women means that in all likelihood the participants were predominantly from the humanities given their low representation in STEM. This would have likely dropped the average IQ. Secondly men outnumber women 2 to 1 at IQ’s over 130. Meaning the average must have been skewed downwards. Finally the participants were recruited from sign up sheets and were paid hourly as you mentioned. I don’t know about you but I find this a very poor recruiting methodology. First of all the chances that a high IQ individual who hasn’t already been tested at an early age and who also needs to do this for the money would actually opt for this are very very low in my view. Meaning that the recruiting method would have been likely somewhat exclusionary to top tier talent. In closing you’re assuming that the test norms were 25 years old. How do you know they weren’t re-normed? Do you think that Peterson would not have ensured to have used a reliable test? Hmmm not convinced! I don’t mean to be antithetical to your views and while I presume you have far more experience with these matters than me, I remain skeptical. The 1994 study putting the top 12 university average at 142 was quite conclusive at the time. I would argue that given all the reasons I’ve cited the average would likely be at least 10 points higher.
As for your claim that you regularly find <100 IQ individuals, I will defer to your experience on this and accept that this might be possible. I wonder however wouldn't there be individuals that are on an off day or going through a stressful period? This might skew their scores quite a bit wouldn't it? Would you not get some people just doing it for the money? This may account for the 1% that score less than 100. I don't know I just find this all too incredible to believe. An average intellect sticks out like a sore thumb, surely they are screened during selection, even if they need to recruit people for nonsense degrees. Anyway, respectfully, these are just a few of my thoughts.
However statistically speaking roughly 3 million Americans will have an IQ of 135 or more. That is a lot of people, 40 thousand of which will be first year college students, the best of which will go to elite schools(20k in fact). So there’s plenty to go round.
But only about 4 million Americans turn 18 every year (the age to enter college), and only 40,000 of those have IQs of 135+ and I suspect the vast majority will not end up at elite schools because they’re either too lazy, too non-conformist, too academically unambitious, too poor or cheap, too mentally ill, too ugly, fat or nerdy to get through the interview, aren’t that fluent in English (immigrants) not well-rounded enough, were drunk, stoned, unlucky, tired, unprepared or sick on SAT day, or because they lack the cognitive profile favored by the SAT (even high IQ people don’t test well on all tests). For every high IQ person who doesn’t go to an elite school, a mediocre mind takes their place, thus dragging down the average IQ of these schools.
My question is why wouldn’t the top schools get the absolute top talent? The fees alone act as a tremendous screening process for those that are either ill equipped or won’t take things seriously. I doubt any parent would spent 50k a year if their child is clearly not smart enough even if they have millions.
They would because just the prestige & connections of having gone to Harvard has enormous perceived value. You put Harvard on your resume and you move to the front of the line for almost any high status job & other high status people want to be your friend and spouse. Even if you flunk out, no one will know because records are sealed and you could claim you dropped out to pursue other upper class interests like traveling the world or starting a business.
While at the same time I don’t think Harvard would risk damaging their reputation by admitting all the dummy trust fund babies. After all the fees are fixed and there are only so many available positions. 50k is 50k whether it comes from a millionaire or a middle class family. Donations surely matter but is it really that much, perhaps 3-4 per academic year…?
Donations are everything for Harvard, in fact they get such huge donations that many of their students attend for free. They don’t want to risk their reputation by admitting rich dummies, but an IQ of 95 is not that dumb (only a hair below average) and such people can come across as impressive in interviews if they’re tall, fit, good looking, extroverted or well trained in the social graces. And Harvard also doesn’t want to risk their reputation by admitting students purely on ability, otherwise they’ll get too many nerds and not enough of the well-rounded types who make the university fun and interesting and go on to become famous alumns.
OK Well had a look at the figures you provided regarding the Peterson study. I’m sorry but I find that far from conclusive.
33 men and 53 women is far from a reliable sample. The oversampling of women means that in all likelihood the participants were predominantly from the humanities given their low representation in STEM. This would have likely dropped the average IQ. Secondly men outnumber women 2 to 1 at IQ’s over 130. Meaning the average must have been skewed downwards. Finally the participants were recruited from sign up sheets and were paid hourly as you mentioned. I don’t know about you but I find this a very poor recruiting methodology. First of all the chances that a high IQ individual who hasn’t already been tested at an early age and who also needs to do this for the money would actually opt for this are very very low in my view. Meaning that the recruiting method would have been likely somewhat exclusionary to top tier talent.
On the other hand the duller students might opt out because they’d be intimidated by taking an IQ test, which would skew the sample higher, and rich kids who are attending Harvard because of wealth not ability, would also opt out, further skewing the sample up. I agree that this study is not conclusive, but there was a similar study at Dartmouth where the students scored in the 120s on the WAIS. I also believe Carson did a follow up study on another sample of Harvard students and they had virtually the same IQs. Of course in all cases these were probably mostly humanities students, which I agree biases the numbers down to some degree.
In closing you’re assuming that the test norms were 25 years old. How do you know they weren’t re-normed?
Because the WAIS has only been normed four times. Once in the 1950s (the original WAIS), once in the late 70s (WAIS-R), once in the mid 1990s (WAIS-III), and once in the 2000s (WAIS-IV). This particular study used an abbreviated version of the WAIS-R so I know the norms were from 1978. Norming a test like the WAIS is extremely expensive (you need a stratified sample that matches the whole U.S. population on many demographic & geographic variables), so they don’t do it that often.
Do you think that Peterson would not have ensured to have used a reliable test? Hmmm not convinced!
The test was reliable, it’s just that the scores were inflated a bit. The purpose of the study was not to determine the average IQ of Harvard students, but rather to predict creativity from IQ and latent inhibition. And you’d be surprised by how common it is to use outdated norms that give inflated results (even in death penalty cases where scoring above IQ 70 will cost you your life)
I don’t mean to be antithetical to your views and while I presume you have far more experience with these matters than me, I remain skeptical. The 1994 study putting the top 12 university average at 142 was quite conclusive at the time. I would argue that given all the reasons I’ve cited the average would likely be at least 10 points higher.
It’s conclusive that they had the IQ equivalent of 142 on the SAT, but people selected based (largely) on a high score on test A, will regress as group on test B, C, D, and E, to the point where test A often becomes an outlier to be dismissed.
For example, a study of university students who took bot the SAT and the Raven Progressive Matrices IQ test found the following formula best predicted Raven IQ from SAT scores:
X’IQ = (0.095 * SAT-M) + (-0.003 * SAT-V) + 50.241
It is interesting to apply this formula to the average Harvard student who scored 1490 on the SAT (reading + math). Assuming the typical Harvard undergrad scored 745 on both the reading and the math section, the formula predicts they will score 123 on the Raven IQ test. Note, 123 is NOT their SAT score converted to an IQ equivalent, it’s their expected IQ on a different test, given their score on the SAT, and thus there is severe regression to the mean.
A predicted IQ of 123 is similar to the WAIS IQ of Harvard students in the Carson/Peterson study I cited above.
As for your claim that you regularly find <100 IQ individuals, I will defer to your experience on this and accept that this might be possible. I wonder however wouldn't there be individuals that are on an off day or going through a stressful period? This might skew their scores quite a bit wouldn't it?
Off days and on days cancel out in group data. I’m not basing it on my experience, just noting that the dullest student in the Carson/Peterson study had a WAIS IQ IQ of 97 (even before subtracting for old norms). Maybe he/she was an outlier, I don’t know. But if you look at the scatter plot of SAT vs Raven IQ, you’ll find even some people with SAT scores around the mean at elite schools, have Raven IQs below 100.
Would you not get some people just doing it for the money? This may account for the 1% that score less than 100. I don’t know I just find this all too incredible to believe. An average intellect sticks out like a sore thumb, surely they are screened during selection, even if they need to recruit people for nonsense degrees. Anyway, respectfully, these are just a few of my thoughts.
I understand your skepticism. It is hard to believe and I don’t expect to convince everyone. And I could be 100% wrong since my opinions are always changing as I learn more. But if Muggsy Bogues can play on the NBA despite being 2.71 SD below average in sex-adjusted height, I’m not surprised to find a few people with IQs slightly below average at Harvard. Unless the correlation between IQ and an achievement is near perfect, there will be a huge spread of scores at even the highest levels of achievement. That’s just the way scatter plots work, in my humble opinion.
I got 120 on the Ravens. 1471 on the (SAT).
“But only about 4 million Americans turn 18 every year (the age to enter college), and only 40,000 of those have IQs of 135+”
I was going by the 5 or so million first year college students in the US every year, of which about 20% are foreign. If we were to go by the statistics of people in the US without a college degree of about 30% it would be fair to assume that a good majority of those people are people with an IQ lower than 100. Meaning that with a high degree of certainty 95%+ of people with a 135+ IQ will have at the very least attended University. I would assume the number of people that with gifted iQs not having attended college is anecdotally low. If one is that smart, they know how much better off they will be with a degree than without.
“They would because just the prestige & connections of having gone to Harvard has enormous perceived value. You put Harvard on your resume and you move to the front of the line for almost any high status job & other high status people want to be your friend and spouse. Even if you flunk out, no one will know because records are sealed and you could claim you dropped out to pursue other upper class interests like traveling the world or starting a business.”
Agreed, this is certainly a factor but IMHO one can only score so much higher on an SAT test than their IQ predicts. I have no doubt that one can easily under-perform but over perform, not very likely… So you think that a person with an average IQ could score a 1400 on an SAT test? Not very likely. I think a lot of people use the exception to discount the rule. At an absolute max I would say that one can score 1 SD better than their IQ would predict on an SAT test but no more. They can however likely score 2-3 SD below their IQ.
“Donations are everything for Harvard, in fact they get such huge donations that many of their students attend for free. They don’t want to risk their reputation by admitting rich dummies, but an IQ of 95 is not that dumb (only a hair below average) and such people can come across as impressive in interviews if they’re tall, fit, good looking, extroverted or well trained in the social graces. ”
Once again I’m not going to push back on this as I think you probably have more knowledge on this but feel that this sort of thing occurs at a 5-10% rate. I could be wrong but if I am, then elite education in the US has taken a downward spiral that it may never come out of. As for donations, I meant 3-4 major donations per year that serve the purpose of pushing through a dummy rich kid. Most other donations are either for borderlines(barely missed the mark) or either to strengthen ties and influence with the university perhaps for political purpose or a push for academic reform.
“On the other hand the duller students might opt out because they’d be intimidated by taking an IQ test, which would skew the sample higher, and rich kids who are attending Harvard because of wealth not ability, would also opt out, further skewing the sample up.”
You would be surprised how many dumb kids think they are smarter than they actually are(I’m sure you’ve heard of the Dunning Kruger effect). You also underestimate their resilience, most would find no problem to just turn around and claim that IQ tests aren’t valid or they had an off day or they did it just for the money or it doesn’t bother them in the slightest. There are so many outs it’s not even funny. I mean come on, just take a gander online(you tube or elsewhere) where they have discussions about IQ, the overwhelming majority claim IQ tests are not a good measure of intelligence. Why you may ask, because that is the correct play for them, it saves their ego from taking the hit and it serves to validate whatever theory they have concocted to excuse their shortcomings. No, I’m pretty sure this way of sampling most decidedly would exclude super high iQs(likely already been tested) and rich(already at a 116 mean as you’ve stated yourself) or serious kids that don’t have the time to waste and don’t need the money. I mean what serious researcher would think it was OK to have 62% women in their study or to accept a humanities/social sciences overwhelming majority? Even though I like Jordan Peterson I sense something foul is afoot. You may be right about the test itself(when it was last normed) but I think that since the focus of this study seems to not have been primarily to find out the average IQ of Harvard students then it should be taken with a huge grain salt. In fact perhaps it would be possible to adjust for the limitations of the study(humanities, excess of women etc) in order to come up with a true average. Furthermore there are various studies that give a range up to 141 for Harvard. Worth taking into consideration.
“Off days and on days cancel out in group data”
You don’t really mean that do you? Aren’t all tests meant to be taken on our on days? Isn’t that a huge facet of success, being able to time your performance in order to perform at your best when it matters? ANY test is by default designed to test someone’s peak performance. I seriously doubt that a 180 IQ person is functioning at that level 24/7. In fact I would gander that these people probably idle around 150 and only peak at 180 for a max of 2 hours at a time. Therefore the default is to be ON during a test, those that are off or even so-so are probably not getting a true indication of what they can produce.
“But if Muggsy Bogues can play on the NBA despite being 2.71 SD below average in sex-adjusted height, I’m not surprised to find a few people with IQs slightly below average at Harvard. Unless the correlation between IQ and an achievement is near perfect, there will be a huge spread of scores at even the highest levels of achievement. That’s just the way scatter plots work, in my humble opinion.”
Fair point, but remember there has only ever been one Muggsy Bogues. There have been 3071 people that have played in the NBA throughout history and only 4 of which have had a height of 5′ 6″ or lower. I would guess that one would only ever find 2-3 at harvard that truly score below 100 and aren’t just having a bad day.
In any case ever the skeptic, I still enjoy our back and forth and appreciate your time in engaging my points.
I was going by the 5 or so million first year college students in the US every year, of which about 20% are foreign. If we were to go by the statistics of people in the US without a college degree of about 30% it would be fair to assume that a good majority of those people are people with an IQ lower than 100. Meaning that with a high degree of certainty 95%+ of people with a 135+ IQ will have at the very least attended University. I would assume the number of people that with gifted iQs not having attended college is anecdotally low. If one is that smart, they know how much better off they will be with a degree than without.
Chris Langan & Rick Rosner (the two smartest Americans as measured by the Mega test) did not attend elite schools. If a large percentage of even 170+ IQ people don’t attend these schools, why should we think so many 135+ IQs do?
Agreed, this is certainly a factor but IMHO one can only score so much higher on an SAT test than their IQ predicts. I have no doubt that one can easily under-perform but over perform, not very likely… So you think that a person with an average IQ could score a 1400 on an SAT test? Not very likely. I think a lot of people use the exception to discount the rule. At an absolute max I would say that one can score 1 SD better than their IQ would predict on an SAT test but no more. They can however likely score 2-3 SD below their IQ.
I look at it a bit differently. I see the SAT (or any IQ type test) as a composite score of three variables: intelligence, motivation/preparation, and luck. Now assuming a roughly zero correlation between these variables, someone could have average intelligence but be +2 SD in both motivation/preparation and luck, and thus their performance on the test (a composite of all three variables) would be +2.33 SD. Now if the same person were then unmotivated/unprepared and unlucky on the WAIS or the Raven, you could see a HUGE discrepancy between the two tests.
But it’s always better to measure the IQ of a group by a test not used to select the group, because the selected group were not just selected for extreme intelligence, but extremeness on every variable measured by the selection test (i.e. luck for that particular test) and this goes not just for elite college students, but any such group such as the Mega society or members of school gifted classes, etc
If I claimed the 400 richest Americans had the 400 highest IQs and used the very measure to select them (wealth) as the proxy by which I measured their IQs, I’d be laughed out of the room. If I claimed the world’s greatest chess player had the world’s highest IQ because chess is a proxy for IQ, the circularity in my reasoning would be obvious, but because the SAT correlates much better with IQ than money or chess ratings do, the circularity in measuring elite college IQs by SATs is much less obvious.
No, I’m pretty sure this way of sampling most decidedly would exclude super high iQs(likely already been tested) and rich(already at a 116 mean as you’ve stated yourself) or serious kids that don’t have the time to waste and don’t need the money. I mean what serious researcher would think it was OK to have 62% women in their study or to accept a humanities/social sciences overwhelming majority? Even though I like Jordan Peterson I sense something foul is afoot. You may be right about the test itself(when it was last normed) but I think that since the focus of this study seems to not have been primarily to find out the average IQ of Harvard students then it should be taken with a huge grain salt. In fact perhaps it would be possible to adjust for the limitations of the study(humanities, excess of women etc) in order to come up with a true average. Furthermore there are various studies that give a range up to 141 for Harvard. Worth taking into consideration.
I’ve never heard of any study where Harvard students scored IQ 140 on any test other than the one used to select them. It’s plausible that the true Harvard IQ is higher than Carson/Peterson study shows, but given the other data pointing in the same direction, I doubt they were off by more than 5 points.
You don’t really mean that do you? Aren’t all tests meant to be taken on our on days? Isn’t that a huge facet of success, being able to time your performance in order to perform at your best when it matters? ANY test is by default designed to test someone’s peak performance. I seriously doubt that a 180 IQ person is functioning at that level 24/7. In fact I would gander that these people probably idle around 150 and only peak at 180 for a max of 2 hours at a time. Therefore the default is to be ON during a test, those that are off or even so-so are probably not getting a true indication of what they can produce.
If you’re “on” enough to agree to be tested, and “on” enough that the psychologist administering the test sees nothing especially wrong, then it’s considered an “on” day. Keep in mind that to standardize the WAIS, they had so many demographic quotas to fill to make the sample representative of the U.S. census, that I doubt they excluded everyone having an off-day, which is a subjective thing to judge. So just by taking a test on “on-day”, means you probably scored too high, because the average person in the norming sample probably took the test on an average day.
One problem with the SAT is its a group administered test so there is no psychologist making sure everyone is healthy, awake, sober, and motivated, so all the druggies and slackers will inflate the scores of the hyper-motivated well prepared Harvard types, since all IQ type scores are graded on a curve.
Fair point, but remember there has only ever been one Muggsy Bogues. There have been 3071 people that have played in the NBA throughout history and only 4 of which have had a height of 5′ 6″ or lower. I would guess that one would only ever find 2-3 at harvard that truly score below 100 and aren’t just having a bad day.
But 5’6″ is 1.55 SD below the male mean and not explained by bad days. If your 1.55 SD below the mean in IQ your IQ is 77. If NBA is to height anything like Harvard is to IQ, we might expect some Harvard students to have IQs below 80! I wouldn’t go that far, but I do know of one case (told to me in real life by a university psychologist) of a woman with an IQ in the mid 70s getting a graduate degree, though this woman had a huge verbal IQ > non-verbal IQ split.
And I’m sensing a pattern. When Trump said/did non-smart things, you blamed it on stress. When Richard Feynman scored IQ 125, you blamed it on childhood verbal test, when Harvard students score below 100, you blame it on bad days. Not saying you’re wrong in all these cases, but if you always explain away data that contradicts your hypothesis, then your hypothesis becomes unfalsifiable and by definition unscientific.
In any case ever the skeptic, I still enjoy our back and forth and appreciate your time in engaging my points.
Thank you. And I appreciate your ability to strongly disagree with me while staying civil!
Correction: It looks like only 6% of enrollment are international students in the US. Furthermore there are likely between 2.5-3 million American first year 18 year old students every year. There is a small discrepancy in that there are 17 million students enrolled every year as undergraduates but these likely include people taking the year again, gap year students or older to mature students plus international students. This however does not mean that Universities don’t likely get virtually all the gifted 18 year olds.
You are assuming that test effort/fitness follows a normal distribution. I would say that due to the nature of a “test”(predicated on evaluating ones best abilities) effort/fitness tends to cluster near the max with far more outliers on the low end than ones putting in the performance of the ages. In other words I doubt it is normally distributed while most people would likely perform at 90 – 100% of their capability meaning there is far more ground to lose in the negative direction than there is to win in the positive. Note that things like depression and anxiety tend to heavily impact people’s performance(a well documented phenomenon) while last I checked developing momentary superhuman powers or a genius pill is still a pipe dream.
You are assuming that test effort/fitness follows a normal distribution. I would say that due to the nature of a “test”(predicated on evaluating ones best abilities) effort/fitness tends to cluster near the max with far more outliers on the low end than ones putting in the performance of the ages. In other words I doubt it is normally distributed while most people would likely perform at 90 – 100% of their capability meaning there is far more ground to lose in the negative direction than there is to win in the positive.
That’s probably true, but because IQ is graded on curve, people who under-perform on a test can’t do so without causing everyone else to over-perform. By definition, 2% of Americans have IQs above 130, so if someone with a true IQ of 130 scores below 130 on the test, someone with a true IQ below 130 must score above 130 by default.
the reality of trump is:
1. after he completed trump tower he basically retired. and he would be richer today if he’d just invested his dad’s money in SPY. in the first forbes 400 he and his father were 200 something.
2. he is very sophisticated and a genius in his own way. so much so, that his enemies look autistic. he is sui generis.
my dad was always poor, but he always spoke of rich and famous people as if they were ordinary people, not betters. he thought trump was an “unusual guy”.
it’s horrible and marxist but true. trump never had to fake it to make it. he could be his own weird unusual self his whole life precisely because his dad was so rich.
say what you will…most rich kids don’t amount to a hill of beans. the closest thing to trump is JFK. except joseph p kennedy was much higher up the 400 list than fred trump. and JFK had no business career. just a military one. then politics.
”2. he is very sophisticated”
“And I’m sensing a pattern. When Trump said/did non-smart things, you blamed it on stress.”
Surely you see the problem in judging people by their mistakes? In the end we can turn anyone into a bumbling fool, even Chris Langan. I didn’t exactly blame it on stress, I said stress is a factor, a major one in fact under the circumstances of DC politics and the presidency.
“When Richard Feynman scored IQ 125, you blamed it on childhood verbal test”
Well that’s not me, others have done the research and accounted for this, but surely you see how ludicrous a claim it is to say that Richard Feynman merely had an IQ of 125?
“when Harvard students score below 100, you blame it on bad days.”
This is the one thing I cannot say for sure as I have not seen who and under what circumstances they scored below 100. I am merely speculating on this given my experience with academic life(myself and others).
“Not saying you’re wrong in all these cases, but if you always explain away data that contradicts your hypothesis, then your hypothesis becomes unfalsifiable and by definition unscientific.”
I am virtually certain about Feynman, willing to give the benefit of the doubt towards Trump given past president performances(they all fumble one way or the other) and admit that with <100 IQ harvard students I am merely citing possible explanations for some, I repeat some, of those sub 100 scores. I may be wrong though, it was just a thought.
As for my comment regarding under performing it was a counter to your statement that the ons cancel out the offs. I don't think that is how it works, as I've explained I don't think effort/fitness is normally distributed. Surely the curve they are graded on is normed before hand. Correct me if I'm wrong but they don't actually re-scale the test for the participants and performances on the day…?
"But 5’6″ is 1.55 SD below the male mean and not explained by bad days. If your 1.55 SD below the mean in IQ your IQ is 77. If NBA is to height anything like Harvard is to IQ, we might expect some Harvard students to have IQs below 80!"
But alas it is not! The best thing approximating Harvard to IQ in terms of the NBA is athletic prowess, of which height is only one component. If we were to try to predict performance in the NBA in a standardized way that was as generalized as possible without actually testing for basketball ability it would be an athletic aptitude test. Test for balance, aim, speed, fitness, robustness and I guess height too.
"So just by taking a test on “on-day”, means you probably scored too high, because the average person in the norming sample probably took the test on an average day."
I disagree, we all get raised on test taking, we all know what the stakes are, which means that we all cluster around the 90-100% effort/fitness. That is after all how we are conditioned to take tests. However there are outliers, anxiety, depression, lack of sleep, etc etc they grossly under perform <80%. Have you not heard of the odd person that froze during the test and scored a zero, or blanked and failed catastrophically? You can fail downwards but you can't fail upwards(by some miracle develop cognitive powers you never had).
"If a large percentage of even 170+ IQ people don’t attend these schools, why should we think so many 135+ IQs do?"
Interesting you bring this up, I think that above a certain IQ life is so easy for you that you might consider it a challenge to try to make it without a degree, in fact the degree itself is meaningless. I doubt this sort of thinking occurs to mere mortal 135s. I would think it takes either tremendous motivation or singular focus and passion to opt to make it without a degree with only a moderately high IQ. People with a 160+ have so much more to fall back on to it's like a game for them. I still think however that you are using anecdotal evidence, I would gander that this phenomenon accounts for no more than 5% of high IQ individuals overall.
disagree, we all get raised on test taking, we all know what the stakes are, which means that we all cluster around the 90-100% effort/fitness.
But when we all cluster between 90 to 100%, it just means that the difference between 90 and 100 becomes that much more important, because IQ is graded on a curve. So in a society where only a few people are raised on testing, the difference between 0% effort and 100% effort is 30 IQ points, where as in our society, the difference between 90 and 100% might be 30 points. Because IQ is normed on a curve, when the population becomes more similar, it takes much smaller differences in test performance to create the same difference in IQ.
Well that’s not me, others have done the research and accounted for this, but surely you see how ludicrous a claim it is to say that Richard Feynman merely had an IQ of 125?
It would be unlikely but I wouldn’t call it ludicrous. If Garry Kasparov can score 135 and 123 on two professionally administered adult tests, then it’s obviously possible to be a world-class achiever in a complex intellectual field, without having a spectacular IQ, though on average world class chess champions are likely above 145.
But alas it is not! The best thing approximating Harvard to IQ in terms of the NBA is athletic prowess, of which height is only one component. If we were to try to predict performance in the NBA in a standardized way that was as generalized as possible without actually testing for basketball ability it would be an athletic aptitude test. Test for balance, aim, speed, fitness, robustness and I guess height too.
On the other hand, Harvard students are selected based on just the cognitive skills tested by the SAT, just as NBA players are selected based on just the physical skills measured by basketball. So Harvard students should regress a lot to the mean when they go from the SAT to other tests, just like Michael Jordan regressed a lot to the mean when he went from basketball to baseball. Not a perfect analogy, but suggestive.
“just like Michael Jordan regressed a lot to the mean when he went from basketball to baseball. Not a perfect analogy, but suggestive.”
Which mean are you referring to? The baseball players mean or the population average mean? Surely you must be joking if it is the latter. Furthermore, are you discounting years of experience all the other players have over MJ? In fact I think you just made my point, the very fact that MJ could transition so easily to a completely different sport means that his physical aptitude(if we were to devise such a metric) is off the charts! He has transferable physical abilities, just like a high IQ individual would probably excel in most academic disciplines.
“If Garry Kasparov can score 135 and 123 on two professionally administered adult tests, then it’s obviously possible to be a world-class achiever in a complex intellectual field, without having a spectacular IQ, though on average world class chess champions are likely above 145.”
Well thanks for making my point with the 145 IQ of chess champions but more to the point do you really think that a chess champion and world renowned theoretical physicist are remotely comparable? I mean chess is a highly specialized(perhaps among the MOST specialized mediums of cognitive engagement), it basically only taps into visual IQ and a little bit of logical and memory. Physics deals with mathematical/logical, visual and to some degree verbal in far greater scope than chess. Surely you see that there is simply no comparison. Also Feynman managed to get the top score in the country in a math competition with a last minute entry and little preparation. The fact that people would question his IQ in this way is an affront to the idea of intelligence itself.
“But when we all cluster between 90 to 100%, it just means that the difference between 90 and 100 becomes that much more important, because IQ is graded on a curve.”
What I am basically saying is that effort/fitness is not normally distributed is all. There will likely be heave clustering at the high end with extreme outliers at the low end. The fact that this will likely be a common phenomenon means that IQ tests are for the most part a valid way to test for intelligence but this also means that unfortunately there will be a few people that will perform well below their potential.
Which mean are you referring to? The baseball players mean or the population average mean? Surely you must be joking if it is the latter. Furthermore, are you discounting years of experience all the other players have over MJ? In fact I think you just made my point, the very fact that MJ could transition so easily to a completely different sport means that his physical aptitude(if we were to devise such a metric) is off the charts! He has transferable physical abilities, just like a high IQ individual would probably excel in most academic disciplines.
I’m not an expert on baseball, but according to someone who sounds knowledgeable about the subject and favorable to Michael Jordan, “if he had stuck with baseball after high school, he would have been a good minor league player with the possibility of even reaching the majors” (see 7:29 mark in below video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTMdZmR1fPs
Michael Jordan was probably about +5.66 SD in basketball, and would have perhaps been +4 SD in baseball had he devoted his life to it and possibly reached the majors (only about one in 30,000 young men make the majors). So even though +4 SD is off the charts, it still reflects 30% regression to the mean from the +5.66 SD level he is in basketball (greatest of all time). So if elite college students regressed 30% to the mean from the SAT to official IQ tests, we can see how they’d go from IQ 142 on the SAT to IQ 129 on the WAIS. The Carson/Peterson study found an average IQ of 128 which could have been an underestimate for all the reasons you’ve given and more, but it could have been an overestimate because of the use of outdated norms inflating scores by several points and the fact that Harvard students are smarter than the average elite college student. My view is that the factors causing the sample to underestimate elite college IQ might negate the factors causing it to overestimate.
but more to the point do you really think that a chess champion and world renowned theoretical physicist are remotely comparable? I mean chess is a highly specialized(perhaps among the MOST specialized mediums of cognitive engagement), it basically only taps into visual IQ and a little bit of logical and memory. Physics deals with mathematical/logical, visual and to some degree verbal in far greater scope than chess.
You make chess sound like tic-tac-toe.
Chess is one of the most respected games in the World. It requires not only visual ability and logic, but working memory, strategic thinking, planning, the ability to anticipate the behavior of an opponent, creatively exploit opportunities, and adapt a constantly changing environment to your advantage. I have no idea what high level math (i.e. physics) requires so I wont comment on that, but chess always struck me as an especially interesting measure of intelligence because you actually have to outwit an opponent in battle by maximizing yours strengths and minimizing your weaknesses. Superficially it seems to measure the kinds of adaptive behaviors intelligence evolved to create.
Of course a lot of strategies can just be memorized and the fact that a computer can do it proves it can be reduced to just calculations, but most minds play very differently from a computer.
Surely you see that there is simply no comparison. Also Feynman managed to get the top score in the country in a math competition with a last minute entry and little preparation.
And Kasparov would have got the top score in a chess competition. And Feynman might have had as much prep in math as Kasparov had in chess. From wikipedia:
When Feynman was 15, he taught himself trigonometry, advanced algebra, infinite series, analytic geometry, and both differential and integral calculus.[21] Before entering college, he was experimenting with and deriving mathematical topics such as the half-derivative using his own notation.[22] He created special symbols for logarithm, sine, cosine and tangent functions so they did not look like three variables multiplied together, and for the derivative, to remove the temptation of canceling out the d’s.[23][24]
The fact that people would question his IQ in this way is an affront to the idea of intelligence itself.
You said you’re an engineer so of course you’re going to equate math with intelligence. I’m sure a lot of professional chess players would equate chess talent with intelligence and be outraged by how little you think of it. Indeed in the Soviet Union great chess players were considered Gods with more status than math geniuses. Kasparov is to chess as Feynman was to math. Both had enormous natural talent for their respective disciplines but both also practiced and developed their talents.
Of course it could be that natural talent for math is much more g loaded than natural talent for chess and it could also be that because so many people study math, Feynman’s extra practice gave him little extra advantage, but a lot of people practiced chess in Russia when Kasparov was coming of age.
What I am basically saying is that effort/fitness is not normally distributed is all. There will likely be heave clustering at the high end with extreme outliers at the low end. The fact that this will likely be a common phenomenon means that IQ tests are for the most part a valid way to test for intelligence but this also means that unfortunately there will be a few people that will perform well below their potential.
If your motivation is that low, you’re not going to volunteer for a study measuring IQ, and if you do, the psychologist individually administering the test is going to remove you from the study for skewing the results, and if they don’t, your score will likely be an obvious outlier in the data points. Only on group administered tests like the SAT, where individual effort can’t be monitored, or in cases where people are forced to take an IQ test by courts or other authorities is the kind of low motivation you describe a big issue.
You’re also overlooking the people who are raised by PhDs or tiger moms and take four year test prep courses before taking the SAT. Surely some of these people can be outliers in the opposite direction on the SAT?
Of course I’m not arguing that Feynman and Kasparov have the same IQ. Kasparov is probably way below the average for chess champs & chess might be much less g loaded than physics, so Feynman might be more like the cognitive equivalent of michael Jordan than he is like Kasparov
Interesting fact about IQtards is that they even understand all analytical possibilities IQ have. Talent is expressed by huge innate potential for SOMETHING, at priori. ALL talented people are like that. Genius, what i said, is the end-expression of talent, when you’re not just capable to replicate perfectionistically given tasks but also or expand its understanding. MOST people are not specially dedicated to the fundamental task of thinking. IQ by now can’t detect these details its broader approach obviously cannot reach. We can say all highly IQ people have a above avg potential to be talented, i mean, to be capable to memorize and replicate in more detail/perfection given knowledge or information, but often about:
technical stuff [non-artistic]
in broader way and not super-concentrated, in the case of classical talent cases.
Talent is TOTALLY correlated with sub-specific or specific IQ as well genius does.
IF not a legitimate psychometrical expression of it.
So if elite college students regressed 30% to the mean from the SAT to official IQ tests, we can see how they’d go from IQ 142 on the SAT to IQ 129 on the WAIS.
—-
55 – (SAT 155 – 100) * 0.3 + 100 = 138 WAIS
“Michael Jordan was probably about +5.66 SD in basketball, and would have perhaps been +4 SD in baseball had he devoted his life to it and possibly reached the majors (only about one in 30,000 young men make the majors). So even though +4 SD is off the charts, it still reflects 30% regression to the mean from the +5.66 SD level he is in basketball (greatest of all time). So if elite college students regressed 30% to the mean from the SAT to official IQ tests, we can see how they’d go from IQ 142 on the SAT to IQ 129 on the WAIS. The Carson/Peterson study found an average IQ of 128 which could have been an underestimate for all the reasons you’ve given and more, but it could have been an overestimate because of the use of outdated norms inflating scores by several points and the fact that Harvard students are smarter than the average elite college student. My view is that the factors causing the sample to underestimate elite college IQ might negate the factors causing it to overestimate.”
Oh wow, there’s so much I disagree with here I don’t know where to start. First of all I think 5.66 SD in basketball is short changing MJ by even as much as 1 SD. He is widely considered with little to no argument to be the greatest ever! What does that mean, well up until the 1990s we could say the best American to ever pick up a ball and since then probably the best in the world given the wider pool of players the NBA now can choose it’s pick from. You are probably aware of the fact that any top level players from foreign countries would inevitably end up in the NBA. So it is my estimation that in all likelihood he is the best the world has ever produced, or if we want to account for talent lost to chance or other sports(hard to conceive of but lets play along) lets assume just half the world. That puts him close to 1 in 2 billion, or about 6.4 SD above average.
Secondly I disagree with your reasoning behind a supposed regression to the mean. Wouldn’t we treat this like we would treat evaluating overall IQ from sub tests. So we would try to work out the composite “athletic prowess” from two sub tests and as you well pointed out it is not the average between the two. I would say that his athletic prowess wouldn’t be too far from his NBA rarity. It seems to me that you are treating his baseball ability as the equivalent of real IQ and NBA ability as the equivalent of SAT IQ. Really!? I would say IQ => athletic prowess = composite of NBA + baseball + possibly other sports(didn’t he also play golf?). In any case I think this was a poor example on your part.
“You make chess sound like tic-tac-toe.”
That’s because next to Physics it is. Trust me as an Engineer with a deep passion for physics and a pretty decent chess rating I can say that the two are simply incomparable. Chess relies heavily on visual, and some logical. Then as you rise up the ranks short term memory starts increasing in importance and plateaus around 2200 Elo after which long term memory starts to become more and more important which by the time we reach world class(top 200) long term memory essentially differentiates the champions from the rest(some top chess players remember up to 10,000 games). I agree that chess is a good way to train the mind and serves as a fairly decent proxy for intelligence but Physics just blows it out of the water in terms of how it taxes the mind. In other words I would say the top physicists in the country would crush the top chess players in a comprehensive IQ test in terms of depth and breadth.
As for Kasparov I don’t know about these IQ tests that were supposedly conducted on him. Apparently they were done in Germany, were they culture fair? Could the German or English instructions have effected his score? Was he adequately focused? Also note that chess at that level is highly specialized, it basically takes up ALL of these people’s time. It used to be that the best chess players of old were polymaths of sorts, these days it’s chess 24/7 if they want to make it. That may in the long run erode away at the cognitive infrastructure required to engage in simple IQ type questions. That is their brain becomes laser focused on chess and only chess. I personally think that with a high degree of certainty chess grandmasters at the very least have genius level visual IQ, one can make their own inferences about the rest accordingly.
“You said you’re an engineer so of course you’re going to equate math with intelligence. I’m sure a lot of professional chess players would equate chess talent with intelligence and be outraged by how little you think of it.”
Hey, that’s not fair, that is an oversimplified assessment of what I am saying. I’ve already explained my position, I’m not dismissing chess, I actually enjoy the game very much and think very highly of it. What i am saying is that it basically does not compare to Physics, that’s all, in fact IMO nothing compares to physics(sorry math, you take a close second).
“Of course it could be that natural talent for math is much more g loaded than natural talent for chess”
You hit it on the nose there, I would actually go one further and say Physics stands above all in terms of g loading. Math second and the literary arts final.
“You’re also overlooking the people who are raised by PhDs or tiger moms and take four year test prep courses before taking the SAT. Surely some of these people can be outliers in the opposite direction on the SAT”
Yes I agree, despite appearances I am not an SAT nor an IQ absolutist. I think though that one could only score 1 SD above what their IQ will predict on the SAT(with a high level of effort). I believe the SD for the SAT is around 195. So with a 120 IQ few if any could score above 1400. I don’t know I could be wrong, I do admit that with IQ testing one can learn how to take them and improve their score let alone with the SAT which is more knowledge based. So theoretically with enough practice(basically no life, eat sleep, shit, SAT) anything is possible but these are extreme, extreme outliers IMHO.
PS A little food for thought, I’ve noticed a slow shift of placing more importance on verbal over the others on IQ tests. Seeing as these tests are devised by psychologists(among the lowest college IQs and far more proficient in verbal relative to math or visual) I’m beginning to wonder why.
Oh wow, there’s so much I disagree with here I don’t know where to start. First of all I think 5.66 SD in basketball is short changing MJ by even as much as 1 SD. He is widely considered with little to no argument to be the greatest ever! What does that mean, well up until the 1990s we could say the best American to ever pick up a ball and since then probably the best in the world given the wider pool of players the NBA now can choose it’s pick from. You are probably aware of the fact that any top level players from foreign countries would inevitably end up in the NBA. So it is my estimation that in all likelihood he is the best the world has ever produced, or if we want to account for talent lost to chance or other sports(hard to conceive of but lets play along) lets assume just half the world. That puts him close to 1 in 2 billion, or about 6.4 SD above average.
Well, to make the analogy similar to IQ tests, I was comparing him only to American of his age group and since this demographic is better than most of the world at basketball, I decided to err on the conservative side.
Secondly I disagree with your reasoning behind a supposed regression to the mean. Wouldn’t we treat this like we would treat evaluating overall IQ from sub tests. So we would try to work out the composite “athletic prowess” from two sub tests and as you well pointed out it is not the average between the two. I would say that his athletic prowess wouldn’t be too far from his NBA rarity. It seems to me that you are treating his baseball ability as the equivalent of real IQ and NBA ability as the equivalent of SATIQ. Really!? I would say IQ => athletic prowess = composite of NBA + baseball + possibly other sports(didn’t he also play golf?). In any case I think this was a poor example on your part.
The analogy was SAT is to Harvard as basketball is to NBA. So just as Harvard students regress to the mean on tests other than the SAT (i.e. WAIS), NBA players will regress to the mean on sports other than basketball (i.e. baseball). Now you’re right that a composite of multiple sports would give a better measure of Jordan’s athletic ability than just baseball, and analogously, a composite of multiple tests would give a better proxy for Harvard intelligence than just the WAIS, but in order for such composite scores to be meaningful, they can’t include the very measure used to select the people in question, because this is not a randomly selected measure.
If Michael Jordan hadn’t been better at basketball than he is at other sports, we may never have known how good he was at basketball. If Harvard students hadn’t done better on the SAT than they do on other tests, they would never have become Harvard students, thus SATs are not a random measure of Harvard intelligence. We already know, a priori that Jordan is great at basketball and Harvard students are great at SATs. If we want to know whether this is because they are great in general, or whether their greatness is domain specific, we need independent data.
Baseball is independent data with respect to Jordan and gives an athletic score of +4 SD. That score might go up if it’s combined with other randomly selected sports, but it also might go down, so based on what we know so far, he’s +4 SD. but we can’t include basketball in our measures because that’s not independent data. It would be like using the hypothesis to test itself: circular logic. However because this is a very subtle point, even most experts in IQ research never grasp it, in my humble opinion.
Yes I agree, despite appearances I am not an SAT nor an IQ absolutist. I think though that one could only score 1 SD above what their IQ will predict on the SAT(with a high level of effort).
But it’s not just about effort & test prep. Is it not possible for someone with average overall intelligence to have special talents in certain domains? We know for example that some severely retarded people with IQs below 40 could score IQ 180+ on a test of mental calculation. So why can’t some IQ 100 people score 135+ on the SAT? I realize the SAT measures a broader range of skills than the narrow domains “idiot savants” excel in, but the analogy is still suggestive to some degree. The point being, no single test measures all of intelligence, so there are always going to be those who are much smarter on some tests than they are overall.
A little more on Kasparov, I would argue that his visual IQ and short term/working memory is off the charts. The 190 IQ he is often quoted anecdotally as having is IMO a fair rough estimate of his visual IQ. In all likelihood his verbal and math/logical are probably 120+ so I would assume a composite north of 150. Perhaps after adequate prep, and taking a test in his native tongue he may score that high. I think an interesting formula often used to convert Elo rating to IQ is IQ ~ (Elo – 1000)/10 (assuming one has devoted enough time into the game). Given his top rating of 2851 this puts him around an IQ of 185. My guess is that this is not a very accurate representation but rather a ball park figure of one’s potential IQ(assuming one has adequately exercised all facets of their intellect). So my guess is that Kasparov could potentially have a brain that could produce an IQ of 160+ but due to the heavy focus on just one thing(a game no less) he has limited himself in other areas.
“I think though that one could only score 1 SD above what their IQ will predict on the SAT(with a high level of effort). I believe the SD for the SAT is around 195.”
————–
((1471 – (195 + 800))/195)*15 + 100 = 136
“A little more on Kasparov, I would argue that his visual IQ and short term/working memory is off the charts. The 190 IQ he is often quoted anecdotally as having is IMO a fair rough estimate of his visual IQ.”
Kasparov’s visual IQ was actually way below average: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13526693.html
It was so bad that I’m pretty sure he has aphantasia.
SAT
SD = 128
Mean = 1,000
1600 – 1000 = 600
600 / 128 = 4.6875
4.6875 * 15 = 70
1600 = IQ 170
1471 – 1000 = 471
471 / 128 = 3.679
3.679 * 15 = 55
1471 = IQ 155
1471 – 128 = 1343 = IQ 140
illuminatticatblog
Well according to this site the IQ mean of 100 corresponds to 880 giving us a IQ to SAT SD of 207. However I believe that I’ve seen this elsewhere where the actual SAT test takers SD is 195.
https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx
It seems to me that you are using your results to refute my estimations. You might be the perfect person to discuss this with. Allow me to pick your brain for a bit. So you say you scored a 120 on an IQ test. Was this an officially administered test? How long did you study for the SATs and how many times did you take them? Have you done any other IQ tests? Do you feel this IQ result is representative of your intelligence or do you think you took it on a bad day or were blind sided by some of the questioning or it just so happened that you ran into a set of questions that were not your forte? Did you blank out at any time during the test?
Hope my questions aren’t too invasive but it would do a lot in giving me a fuller picture of your experience and perhaps convince me to change my position.
Patrick
Well to be honest I’m not too surprised, chess is a highly specialized game, it does not come close to the full spectrum of cognitive taxing a university discipline would put on a student, even with some of the easiest courses. I still doubt his visual IQ is as low as this seems to show. I am far from convinced. It would be interesting to see if this is true of other chess champions as well. Like I said it is possible that because his entire life from a very young age was entirely devoted to chess he has a lot of underdeveloped academic skills. I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that as someone who has played chess since I was 9 it requires a lot of visual manipulation. Now this doesn’t have to be picture perfect manipulation but you would have to play out a game in your head for 5+ moves ahead, and sometimes when you are away from the board. This is no small feat. One could argue it is a specialized skill but I fail to see that this would not be transferable after some time of exposure to a new setup. Kasparov I believe could play several chess games at the same time blindfold. If that doesn’t require superhuman visual skills I do not know what does. This test seems suspect to me.
An interesting bit of trivia is that roughly 600 million people play chess world wide. Kasparov at one point was the best among them now considered among if not the best of all time. Using that information and assuming that the average IQ among them is 100 it would be safe to assume that on some measure of IQ(I think visual being the strongest component, working memory, and long term memory) he scores an IQ of 189. Now this might not be a full scale IQ but it might be indicative of what his mind can output under proper training and guidance.
https://www.braingle.com/mind/iq/convert.php
This site says:
972 = IQ 100
1600 = IQ 165
1600 – 972 = 628
65 / 15 = 4.333
628 / 4.333 = 144.92
SD = 145
But it does not line up perfectly.
2006 I took the:
New Mexico High School Standard Assessment.
I got
Reading 702
Math 769
(why is this based on a 800, 800 scale if it is not the SAT?)
(everything is thrown out if it is not)
I do not remember taking it.
So not more than once.
No studying I remember.
I have schizoaffective disorder. I feel crapy all the time. But it was an ok day when I took the wais-4. I only got 130 on figure weights because I felt like fainting and asked to stop. My fine motor skills suck. I got 135 on the Stroop test in 2009.
Verbal Comprehension 132
Perceptual Reasoning 121
Working Memory 95
Processing Speed 86
Full Scale 113
(g) 130
WAIS-4 (Nov 2015)
Similarities 120
Vocabulary 120
Information 140
Comprehension 115
Block Design 125
Matrix Reasoning 115
Visual Puzzles 115
Picture Completion 80
Figure Weights 130
Digit Span 85
Arithmetic 105
Letter Number Sequence 100
Symbol Search 80
Coding 95
Illuminaticatblog
That’s all very interesting. It seems to me that you are smarter than your FSIQ would imply. That would explain your ability to score higher on the an SAT type exam than your IQ score predicts. I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but I think your condition might be effecting your working memory and hence your processing speed, the two are intrinsically linked. If you could get a handle on that aspect of it you would likely score 130+ which would bring you more in line with your “SAT” score. It’s possible that your negative emotions are effecting your ability to focus, No?
Are you left handed? I ask because it has been proven that left handed people tend to experience more negative emotions than right handers, something to do with the right side of the brain being susceptible to those emotions. I can attest to that as I am left handed myself and am prone to mild depression/bipolar under heavy stress load. I learned to deal with it on my own at a young age but if I am not careful I can slip back into it. Takes a lot of attention to maintain mental toughness and discipline. Alcohol/drugs tend to erode away at that toughness over time.
In any case, I hope you get a handle on it if you haven’t already, I find that exercise and maintaining a healthy positive attitude helps a lot. Taking time for myself to visualize(what one might call daydreaming) is crucial for me. Obviously preferably when I’m on my own, people can be quite unforgiving if they notice you aren’t present in the moment and devoting your full attention to them, selfish fucks lol
Also I guess there are several interpretations of SAT to IQ conversion. The one(s) I’m aware of max out at an IQ of 152. I think that is reasonable. After all most IQ tests don’t score beyond 160, so it wouldn’t make sense that a test that isn’t exactly an IQ test to have a higher ceiling than that.
Pumpkinhead,
I read a meta-study in Intelligence (journal edited by Elsevier) and the correlation among Chess level and IQ was around 0.30 Elsewhere I read that the 170k people with an actual Fide score had but an average IQ of 115. Meaning that to be in the first 34, you’ll be around 15 IQ points above the average (130 IQ).
I believe that the reason is that crystallized intelligence – knowledge – is paramount. Some players recognize more than 100k chess configuration. So they run on automatic level. What would entail extraordinary genious for beotian is just like recognizing a familiar face to them. This, being trained by knowledgeable people is paramount. I believe it’s a reason why there were so many team of Jews and Russian . Just a tradition of’passing Knowledge.
I saw the spiegel IQ test where Kasparov scores 135. It was 10 questions and I think he got 7 or 8 right. It was very mildly cultural – a bit of vocabulary, numbers and quick logical Pb – but easy (i scored 10 and I m French with no training in English institution. I saw it one year ago while reading this blog). The ceiling was something like 145. Not that high.
I have no idea what is Kasparov idea but from the meta data, the average highest chess players are just mildly gifted people who were willing to invest an incredible numbers of hours memorizing stuff about chess. Maybe there are some savants with a special ability to remember those stuff, the problem being that most super savant are too dumb for using the acquired knowledge efficiently …
I didn’t know the test had only 10 questions?!
But he also scored 123 on the raven which has way more than 10 questions, unless he took some really abbreviated version.
Bruno
“I read a meta-study in Intelligence (journal edited by Elsevier) and the correlation among Chess level and IQ was around 0.30 Elsewhere I read that the 170k people with an actual Fide score had but an average IQ of 115. Meaning that to be in the first 34, you’ll be around 15 IQ points above the average (130 IQ).”
Well that’s interesting, I would have thought that the correlation would be a little bit higher than that though I was never under the illusion that Elo is as strongly correlated with IQ as some might think. As for a Fide rating, you do know that there are Fide rated players with a score of 1100(500 points below the average). There’s a lot of people that simply don’t put enough time into the game or aren’t gifted enough to play at the highest level but still enjoy playing. The idea is that with enough time put into the game your Fide rating will become more and more aligned with your innate intelligence or IQ(though I’m not convinced that the two, innate and IQ, are exactly the same thing, but that is another story for another time). As for the top players, like I’ve said before chess is a highly specialized game, it’s a good proxy for Visual, working memory and long term memory but that isn’t even half of what a full IQ test would measure. What I will say is that if one is at the very top of the game then in all likelihood they will have the type of brain that could score very highly on an IQ test even though they may not have a properly trained well rounded intellect(critical for doing well on IQ tests).
“I believe that the reason is that crystallized intelligence – knowledge – is paramount. Some players recognize more than 100k chess configuration. So they run on automatic level. What would entail extraordinary genious for beotian is just like recognizing a familiar face to them. This, being trained by knowledgeable people is paramount. I believe it’s a reason why there were so many team of Jews and Russian . Just a tradition of’passing Knowledge.”
Indeed, agreed completely here! Without wanting to undermine the computational ability and even creativity it takes to play chess at the highest level, it is well accepted that champion level players have superior long term memory and a massive backlog of experience and studied games from which to draw inspiration from or instruct their pattern recognition.
“I saw the spiegel IQ test where Kasparov scores 135. It was 10 questions and I think he got 7 or 8 right. It was very mildly cultural – a bit of vocabulary, numbers and quick logical Pb – but easy (i scored 10 and I m French with no training in English institution. I saw it one year ago while reading this blog). The ceiling was something like 145. Not that high.”
Yes I believe I’ve seen those question published at a magazine somewhere in reference to the infamous Kasparov IQ test which is why I’ve not been too convinced by this test they gave him. I’m not saying that he HAS to have an IQ of 190, obviously that is astronomically high and not very likely. However given that he was the best the world had produced and arguably the best ever among a pool of at least 600 million world wide that surely implies that on some partial IQ metric he is right up there. Which basically implies that he has the type of brain that under different circumstances(perhaps a more normal well rounded upbringing and lifestyle) he would likely possess a brain that could output a 160+ IQ.
“I have no idea what is Kasparov idea but from the meta data, the average highest chess players are just mildly gifted people who were willing to invest an incredible numbers of hours memorizing stuff about chess. Maybe there are some savants with a special ability to remember those stuff, the problem being that most super savant are too dumb for using the acquired knowledge efficiently …”
This is where I might disagree with you a little bit. As far as we know there is no incidence of savantism among top tier chess players, they all seem normal functioning people. My take is that we often get a mixed bag. Some are more specialized for chess than others, probably those that started from a very young age and have no semblance of a normal life. While others seem extremely well rounded and likely very high functioning in most areas. In other words I have a little higher regard for chess than you seem to, it is a gift and there is no reason to believe that this gift doesn’t have transferable qualities that are applicable to other areas of life or is part of a broader underlying cognitive infrastructure that is primed for top tier intellectual output(under proper guidance). So some might have a superior brain that so happens to be optimized for chess(perhaps innately so or through specific environmental forces) while others have a more balanced outright genius brain that was focused on chess among other things with the inevitable results. However what I don’t think you will find is an average or just above average brain that so happens to be a chess champion.
I still hold that the formula IQ = (Elo-1000)/10 + (the necessary amount of years put into the game) is valid on a partial IQ test. How that test would correlate with a full scale IQ test is not quite clear to me(0.3 seems too low).
pumpkinperson
“But it’s not just about effort & test prep. Is it not possible for someone with average overall intelligence to have special talents in certain domains? We know for example that some severely retarded people with IQs below 40 could score IQ 180+ on a test of mental calculation. “So why can’t some IQ 100 people score 135+ on the SAT? I realize the SAT measures a broader range of skills than the narrow domains “idiot savants” excel in, but the analogy is still suggestive to some degree.”
Well I think you answered your own question there. I don’t think it is possible with reasonable effort to score that far off what one’s IQ would predict with the SAT(1 SD max, maybe a little more with herculean effort). The SAT is far too correlated with IQ and IQ is far too correlated with g. But note what that means, basically someone with an IQ of 137(maybe even 130) could get a perfect score.
Everyone can develop “special skills” this doesn’t mean that all of a sudden we have honed in on another facet of intelligence that we need to factor in as well. If we do this we will inflate the concept of intelligence to a number of infinite variables. Gardner’s multiple intelligences, at least 5 of them, cover all the bases.
Intelligence IMO is not innate, what is innate is the potential for intelligence(or the hardware). Intelligence(or what people call IQ) is acquired and maintained through life and if you are not careful you can corrupt it or fall behind the curve. This is in large part due to how IQ is calculated, it is not an absolute score but rather a relative score, relative to other people. The true variables of potential intelligence are pretty basic, brain size, number of neurons, brain structure(size of relevant regions), number of connections and configuration, signal speed and reliability, and brain chemistry(neurotransmitters and their deployment). Under the ideal configuration one can have a brain with genius potential but it isn’t too hard to squander that if one isn’t careful. However it is not easy if not impossible for your intelligence to exceed your potential intelligence.
Well I think you answered your own question there. I don’t think it is possible with reasonable effort to score that far off what one’s IQ would predict with the SAT(1 SD max, maybe a little more with herculean effort). The SAT is far too correlated with IQ and IQ is far too correlated with g. But note what that means, basically someone with an IQ of 137(maybe even 130) could get a perfect score.
Well we know it’s possible to score close to 2 SD higher on the SAT than one scores on the Raven, because look at all the people who do:
Of course the Raven is not a perfect measure of g, and maybe some people weren’t trying as you’ve implied, but we can’t measure g directly; all we can measure is performance on tests. If every time the test results debunk your hypothesis, you claim the test result was invalid, then your hypothesis can not be tested. An untestable hypothesis is not scientific.
I’m not saying IQ test results should always be taken at face value, but one needs to have a better reason to reject data than the fact that it’s counter-intuitive, otherwise science would never progress and conventional wisdom would never be overturned.
I understand that you prefer to judge people by their best scores since this is more indicative of potential, but that’s just a rising tide that lifts all boats without changing their relative heights. If everyone took a couple dozen IQ tests and each person was judged by their best score, the average IQ would no longer be 100 but 120+ and then 120+ would be the new 100. I’m sure you’ve heard of the infinite monkey theorem. If enough monkeys take the SAT, one will eventually score a perfect 1600 and the same is true for all multiple choice tests.
Everyone can develop “special skills” this doesn’t mean that all of a sudden we have honed in on another facet of intelligence that we need to factor in as well. If we do this we will inflate the concept of intelligence to a number of infinite variables. Gardner’s multiple intelligences, at least 5 of them, cover all the bases.
Well I think the whole point of intelligence is to solve an infinite number of problems. Unlike other evolutionary adaptations that were specialized to specific environments, intelligence is the ultimate adaptation because it’s like the ability to adapt itself. More to the point, Gardner paints with a very broad brush. The kind of spatial intelligence needed to be a pilot is extremely different from the kind needed to be a painter. Where does short-term memory and long-term memory fit in Gardener’s taxonomy? What about executive functioning, comic talent, or the ability to reason by smell, taste or touch?
Intelligence IMO is not innate, what is innate is the potential for intelligence(or the hardware). Intelligence(or what people call IQ) is acquired and maintained through life and if you are not careful you can corrupt it or fall behind the curve. This is in large part due to how IQ is calculated, it is not an absolute score but rather a relative score, relative to other people. The true variables of potential intelligence are pretty basic, brain size, number of neurons, brain structure(size of relevant regions), number of connections and configuration, signal speed and reliability, and brain chemistry(neurotransmitters and their deployment). Under the ideal configuration one can have a brain with genius potential but it isn’t too hard to squander that if one isn’t careful. However it is not easy if not impossible for your intelligence to exceed your potential intelligence.
Almost by definition it’s hard to exceed your potential, but if most people never reach their potential (in many cognitive domains), then simply reaching it could put even an average person way ahead of the curve. But this is all very speculative, and the line between intelligence and potential intelligence is kind of blurry, since some IQ tests measure potential almost directly by asking you to solve novel problems you’ve had little exposure to. Some psychologists might even call potential intelligence “fluid intelligence” and realized intelligence “crystallized intelligence” or simply knowledge.
“If every time the test results debunk your hypothesis, you claim the test result was invalid, then your hypothesis can not be tested. An untestable hypothesis is not scientific.”
Obviously it’s unscientific to reject the results if they run counter to your hypothesis(I’m not doing that) but IMO it is equally unscientific if you don’t account for error and further investigate those outliers and those results that contradict your hypothesis. You don’t throw out your hypothesis because of a few outlier particularly if the majority of the results support your hypothesis. Now this doesn’t mean that you are right but until you have investigated properly then you don’t know for sure and in my view that is equally if not more egregious than rejecting the outliers.
As for the chart you have provided, I will admit I am quite surprised, it seems that roughly 10% of the test takers are scoring 2 SD above what their IQ test would predict. My sense(note I’m just spit balling ideas here, I do that a lot if you haven’t noticed lol this doesn’t mean that I stand by that idea 100%) is that some people only switch on when something is at stake. I’ve met quite a few people like that, generally unassuming middle of the road type of people and then when the stakes are high you see something remarkable from them, and you’re like where the hell did that come from. This may be a factor of how they manage their energy and how their morality is structured. In other words they have to justify to themselves putting in the effort, if they fail to do that they under perform or they cannot summon the energy and the focus to do well. In any case this is just a thought, you can take this with a huge grain of salt while there are many other likely reasons that people under perform. At this point I would be interested in seeing if there is more data on this, see how prevalent this phenomenon is. I may have to revise my hypothesis upwards a little. I predicted 1 SD, 1.5 SD with hyper-effort, though it looks like 2 SD is comfortably in the cards. Interesting!
“I understand that you prefer to judge people by their best scores since this is more indicative of potential, but that’s just a rising tide that lifts all boats without changing their relative heights. ”
You’re not understanding me on this point, what I am saying is that the norm is to put in effort, by a huge margin(that is how tests are meant to be taken) and those that don’t are outliers. Ergo test effort is not normally distributed and as such we are not getting the true indication of what some people are capable of. Now as for collecting large data sets for the purpose of comparing groups this is fine since in all likelihood all groups have the same effort distribution profile but on an individual basis this may be somewhat problematic. Now of course if those outliers put in effort their scores would shift the group mean and effect everyone else’s scores but at the same time their own scores would be shifted upwards putting them closer to or even above the mean. When it comes to Harvard this may mean that there are no true sub 100 IQ scores, sure there obviously will be some that have the lowest scores but those scores don’t necessarily have to be <100 as compared to the national average(which after all is the data set by which the tests are normed, No?).
"Well I think the whole point of intelligence is to solve an infinite number of problems."
So you seem to think that someone who has a particular trivial skill set, say plate spinning, this means that this person in uniquely skilled for that purpose. Could it not be that he spent more time on it than anyone else, or he has a particular passion for it which allowed him to devote more time energy and focus on it than anyone else? This applies to 90% of things in life. There are many "smart" people out there that could do any job just as well as anyone. What differentiates them is the fact that time is finite and our environment has shaped us uniquely and driven us down a path that someone else might never have gone. Point being we cannot play this game of infinite intelligences, it will never end. Every random fool out there will say that he is uniquely good at something and that should be a new metric of intelligence. No, what we do is we break things down to a finite set of underlying cognitive skill sets(math, visual, verbal and in my opinion eventually intra and inter personal intelligence should be added) and evaluate those in the service of saving time. If you think about it almost anything we do in life can be put in one of those categories. Verbal in order to communicate, visual in order to navigate and interact with the world and math in order to make sure we time and measure things correctly and don't roll over a cliff or something. Now there are other senses like touch smell and hearing but one could argue those aren't as important at least in as much as graduating high school or university is concerned.
As you well know there is such a thing as brain plasticity, meaning that we can learn to do almost anything if we really want to and are at least of normal intelligence. So how do we work out who is "smarter" well we realize that there is an underlying cognitive foundation that facilitates this plasticity that in broad terms allows someone to learn faster more reliably with greater precision and in greater depth and breadth than others. So we pick out the things that matter most to success in life, we all agree that these things matter(if we don't we pay the price in the long run), we get to the root of the underlying cognitive mechanics and narrow things down(trim the fat so to speak) and we test for those things to see who is better equipped to take on the challenges of life. Most everything else is trivial to inconsequential. The idea is that if you are x smarter than the average this means that you have the type of brain that will excel in enough things among a massive set of things(obviously not all) so as to give you an advantage in life that will on some level(hopefully with the right amount of effort) be reflected in your general success.
"Some psychologists might even call potential intelligence “fluid intelligence” and realized intelligence “crystallized intelligence” or simply knowledge."
That is quite interesting, never thought of it that way. That sounds about right, though I would say that even fluid intelligence is not exactly the same as potential intelligence but it probably is the closest thing to it.
As for the chart you have provided, I will admit I am quite surprised, it seems that roughly 10% of the test takers are scoring 2 SD above what their IQ test would predict. My sense(note I’m just spit balling ideas here, I do that a lot if you haven’t noticed lol this doesn’t mean that I stand by that idea 100%) is that some people only switch on when something is at stake. I’ve met quite a few people like that, generally unassuming middle of the road type of people and then when the stakes are high you see something remarkable from them, and you’re like where the hell did that come from.
I’ve seen that happen too. But one of the major reasons they give IQ tests is that when a student is failing in school, teachers want to know if he’s just not motivated or if he lacks ability. As a result IQ tests (I assume) are designed to minimize motivation by making most of the problems pretty quick and engaging, unlike school work which can require hours of study. Of course just because the tests are likely designed to minimize motivation, doesn’t mean they’re successful in doing so in all cases, as you say.
You’re not understanding me on this point, what I am saying is that the norm is to put in effort, by a huge margin(that is how tests are meant to be taken) and those that don’t are outliers. Ergo test effort is not normally distributed and as such we are not getting the true indication of what some people are capable of.
I don’t know how normally distributed effort on IQ tests is, but I suspect the distribution of all forms of test error combined is a lot more normally distributed than you think (at least for people who take tests voluntarily), because when you look at the scatter plot I posted predicting Raven IQ from SAT scores, the distribution of scores around the regression line seems pretty normal (except at the high end where more people score way below the regression line than above it, probably because of ceiling bumping). If most people were trying their best, but 10% were not trying, you might expect 10% of the scores to be much further below the regression line than the vast majority of scores.
Indeed if test error wasn’t normally distributed, the whole practice of reporting the margin of error around one’s IQ score (a common practice with professional tests) is pseudoscience.
A long time ago, I personally looked at the SAT-Raven scatter plot carefully and did my best to write down the Raven IQs of every single participant with an SAT score from 1400-1600 (which supposedly equates to IQ 138 to IQ 152). This was an admittedly subjective and imprecise exercise given how small the graph is, but I counted 38 top SAT performers and these were their approximate Raven IQs:
95, 102, 105, 108, 108, 110, 110, 113, 113, 113, 113, 113, 117, 117, 117, 117, 117, 120, 120, 120, 122, 122, 128, 128, 128, 128, 134, 134, 134, 134, 134, 134, 134, 134, 134, 134, 134, 134.
The median IQ of these people is 120. Now let’s be generous to your hypothesis and exclude everyone who scored below 110 on the Raven (lack of effort). The median score of the remaining 33 people is 122 (I used the median because the mean is too sensitive to ceiling bumping). So people with SAT IQs of about 142 on average, have a median Raven IQ of 122. If the median Raven IQ of top SAT people is “only” 122, even with low effort outliers removed, what do you suppose the bottom 1% is (with low effort outliers removed)? My guess is below 95. My guess is that with the low effort outliers removed, the distribution of Raven scores of any given SAT score would be even more normal, though it would be slightly narrower than the general population bell curve because controlling for SATs removes some of the variance in Raven scores.
Now as for collecting large data sets for the purpose of comparing groups this is fine since in all likelihood all groups have the same effort distribution profile but on an individual basis this may be somewhat problematic. Now of course if those outliers put in effort their scores would shift the group mean and effect everyone else’s scores but at the same time their own scores would be shifted upwards putting them closer to or even above the mean. When it comes to Harvard this may mean that there are no true sub 100 IQ scores, sure there obviously will be some that have the lowest scores but those scores don’t necessarily have to be <100 as compared to the national average(which after all is the data set by which the tests are normed, No?).
Right. My point was only that if every member of the national population were all tested on their best day and on their best test, the average IQ would be well above 100. I oversimplified it as a rising tide that lifts all boats without changing their relative heights. It’d be more accurate to say it’s a rising tide that lifts some boats more than others and the boats it would lift most would be those outliers who don’t try on most IQ tests.
So you seem to think that someone who has a particular trivial skill set, say plate spinning, this means that this person in uniquely skilled for that purpose. Could it not be that he spent more time on it than anyone else, or he has a particular passion for it which allowed him to devote more time energy and focus on it than anyone else? This applies to 90% of things in life. There are many “smart” people out there that could do any job just as well as anyone. What differentiates them is the fact that time is finite and our environment has shaped us uniquely and driven us down a path that someone else might never have gone. Point being we cannot play this game of infinite intelligences, it will never end. Every random fool out there will say that he is uniquely good at something and that should be a new metric of intelligence.
Even fools are smart at some things, but that doesn’t mean they’re smart overall. By defining intelligence as the cognitive ability to adapt, versatility is implied. It’s no different from the animal kingdom: humans are the smartest animal and can adapt behaviorally to the most environments, but even small brained birds are smarter than most humans when it comes to building nests or finding their way south without a map, GPS or compass.
And in order for tasks to be appropriate for IQ tests, they have to be so novel that virtually no one’s had a chance to devote their life to practicing it, or so ubiquitous that almost everyone’s practiced it to the point of diminishing returns. But even within those parameters there’s a ton of cognitive diversity, and it’s not that uncommon for people who spend all day being tested by neuropsycholgists to have a 5 SD gap between their highest and lowest test score. The human brain is the most complex known object in the universe, so there are always going to be those who are gifted in some areas and mentally retarded in others. That doesn’t mean we can’t use a single number like IQ to summarize their overall cognition.
No, what we do is we break things down to a finite set of underlying cognitive skill sets(math, visual, verbal and in my opinion eventually intra and inter personal intelligence should be added) and evaluate those in the service of saving time. If you think about it almost anything we do in life can be put in one of those categories. Verbal in order to communicate, visual in order to navigate and interact with the world and math in order to make sure we time and measure things correctly and don’t roll over a cliff or something. Now there are other senses like touch smell and hearing but one could argue those aren’t as important at least in as much as graduating high school or university is concerned.
But we can’t define a trait as universal as intelligence simply by what’s important to one particular species in one particular society at one particular time. This makes it hard, if not impossible to rank different species in terms of intelligence.
Another interesting facet of intelligence which in my view is adequately evaluated in IQ tests is the ability to make accurate value judgements. This means that not only does a high IQ allow you to be good at “enough things among a huge set of things in order to bring about overall success” but also to know which of those things matter and which are trivial. Get enough value decisions correct in life and success is inevitable.
pumpkinperson
Also the Ravens is far from a comprehensive IQ test. For one it is non verbal so clearly we cannot use it to draw reliable comprehensive conclusions about the correlation between the SAT and a proper IQ test. Obviously there will be people who have an above average IQ(and hence likely SAT score) overall that score below average on the Ravens. Thus increasing the discrepancy between the ravens and SAT results. In fact a lot of people including Mr Raven himself don’t consider the progressive matrices an IQ test.
an interesting site with lots of charts to look at:
https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/on-sat-act-iq-and-other-psychometric-test-correlations/
Also note that in most other non Raven IQ tests/SAT graphs, SAT scores never exceed 1 SD above what is predicted by their IQ which means that my intuition was right about this. It seems that ravens is not nearly comprehensive enough and why proper IQ tests tend to be more accurate in predicting SAT scores as they test all facets of intelligence bringing them more in line with the SAT.
But the other scatter plots seem to be comparing the SAT and the ASVAB. The ASVAB is very similar to the SAT in its extreme reliance on verbal and mathematical crystallized knowledge, and these non-g sources of shared variance will inflate the correlation between the tests beyond what would be expected from their shared g loading. Even though the Raven is not a great test, it’s much better to compare the SAT to the Raven because they have little in common beyond g, and then you can adjust for the Raven’s mediocre g loading.
The median Raven score of people who are +2.8 SD on the SAT (if internet sources can be trusted) appears to be no more than +1.47 SD (even when I generously exclude those who scored below 110 on the Raven). This implies a correlation of 0.53 between the SAT and Raven (if a nationally representative sample took both tests).
Now I agree the Raven is not comprehensive, so assuming the Raven has a g loading of “only” 0.72 (that’s the g loading of the Raven-like subtest on the WAIS-IV), this implies that the SAT correlates 0.53/0.72 = 0.74 with g, because as Jensen noted, the correlation between two tests is a product of their factor loadings (and I don’t think the SAT and Raven share much loading on factors other than g) . What that implies is that the average person who is +2.8 SD on the SAT will be 0.74(2.8 SD) = +2.1 SD in g, and about 1 in 2000 will be below the U.S. average in g.
on the wais-4 my g is 130
0.74(2.7 SD SAT) = 2.0 SD g
2.7 = 140 SAT IQ
if the mean of the SAT is 880
1471 = 140
880 = 100
40/15 = 2.7
1471 – 880 = 591
591 / 2.7 = 218
SAT SD = 218
1600 = 150 SAT IQ (137 g)
pumpkinperson
Ravens correlation to g is 0.7
WAIS correlation to g is 0.95
SAT correlation to g is 0.82
ASVAB correlation to go is 0.87
This should tell you everything you need to know at this point. Ravens is not considered an IQ test, at least not a proper one(it’s creator admits as much) therefore the SAT and Ravens will not show a strong correlation. The ASVAB is about as much an IQ test as you could get while it certainly is a more complete IQ test than Ravens. Therefore if you are going to try to find the relationship between IQ and the SAT the ASVAB is a better fit than the Ravens.
Low and behold according to this site and the ASVAB/SAT graph no one scores more than 1 SD above what their IQ predicts. In fact I would be willing to bet that the fit is even tighter with the WAIS given the higher correlation(may not even come close to 1 SD, possible 0.5 SD).
https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/on-sat-act-iq-and-other-psychometric-test-correlations/
Ravens is not considered an IQ test, at least not a proper one(it’s creator admits as much) therefore the SAT and Ravens will not show a strong correlation.
I don’t expect a strong correlation but if the SAT really does have a g loading of 0.82, you’d expect it to correlate at least 0.59 with the Raven, given the Raven’s 0.72 g loading. Instead the degree of regression we see from high SAT people on the Raven suggests a somewhat lower correlation (or non-linearity), and thus a somewhat lower g loading for the SAT (or the Raven) (at least at the high end, if the SAT were administered to the general U.S. population, instead of homogeneous samples with similar academic backgrounds)
The ASVAB is about as much an IQ test as you could get while it certainly is a more complete IQ test than Ravens. Therefore if you are going to try to find the relationship between IQ and the SAT the ASVAB is a better fit than the Ravens.
The ASVAB is probably more g loaded than the Raven but still way too crystallized to give a comprehensive measure of intelligence. The best approach would be to use both tests. Ivy League students would probably average IQ 136 on the ASVAB and perhaps as high as 122 on the Raven, for a composite score of around 130.
Low and behold according to this site and the ASVAB/SAT graph no one scores more than 1 SD above what their IQ predicts.
You appear to be ignoring the fact that the SAT was re-centered in 1995, and that the old SAT (shown in the SAT-ASVAB scatter plot you link to), was MUCH harder than the current SAT, and that an old SAT score of 1560 were accepted by Prometheus society (+4 SD-IQ 160!) and that perfect old SAT scores were considered Mega society level (at least some years). Knowing this, ask yourself again if no one in the graph has SAT scores exceeding their ASVAB scores by 1 SD. I see some people who may exceed it by about 2 SD though these could be outliers.
In fact I would be willing to bet that the fit is even tighter with the WAIS given the higher correlation(may not even come close to 1 SD, possible 0.5 SD).
I suspect that the WAIS verbal scale would resemble the ASVAB in it correlation with the SAT, but the WAIS performance scale would resemble the Raven.
0.82/0.95 = 0.86
0.86(2.32 SD SAT) = 2.0 SD g
SAT SD = 215
1471 = 134.5 SAT IQ (130 g)
1600 = 150 SAT IQ (143 g)
“Knowing this, ask yourself again if no one in the graph has SAT scores exceeding their ASVAB scores by 1 SD. I see some people who may exceed it by about 2 SD though these could be outliers.”
I only found 3 that had more than 1 SD but none of those exceeded 1.5 SD(nowhere near 2 SD). Out of how many test takers? We’re probably talking about less than 0.1%. I did say that none would exceed 1 SD except for a few extreme outliers.
Looking at the top graph in your link, I found half a dozen people with gaps that approached or exceeded 2 SD:
ASVAB IQ about 77, SAT score about 1050 (IQ 118)
ASVAB IQ about 67, SAT score about 720 (IQ 95)
ASVAB IQ about 98, SAT score about 1175 (IQ 126)
ASVAB IQ about 104, SAT score about 1275 (IQ 133)
ASVAB IQ about 107, SAT score about 1301 (IQ 135)
ASVAB IQ about 122, SAT score about 1500 (IQ 152)
Also if we look at the second graph from the top in your link, it shows the expected ASVAB score of different SAT scores.
The regression line shows that the expected ASVAB score of people scoring 1340 on the older harder version of the SAT (which was Ivy League level in the year the data on that graph is from) is about 127 (roughly the same as the abbreviated WAIS IQ of Harvard students in the Peterson/Carson study)
I remember page numbers of books I’ve read for specific purposes. (I’ve been buying digital books for a while now and so I can highlight things so I can go back to them later immediately. But even my physical books I leave no notation and I still remember where relevant things are when they come up.)
but not down to the page. maybe within 10 pages either way in a book of 250 pages.
anastasia
“he could be his own weird unusual self his whole life precisely because his dad was so rich.”
Well that’s an understatement lol but I would certainly agree with you, I think a lot of people underestimate his abilities which is probably why he managed to win the presidency, they never saw him coming.
“Being President? Not so much.”
So you reference the iq la la land guess, but the subjective judgement of his presidency has a throwaway line and hes not even finished his term.
Unz isn’t mossad. Thats dumb. By that line of reasoning, Palestinian suicide bombers are mossad because they give Likud an excuse to always be in power.
Well, not all suicide bombers are false flags. Just like not all alternative media is a phishing operation.
People also said Alex Jones was Mossad. Hes not. But its clear hes sympathetic to jews. But the fact he invited David Duke to talk without making him look bad should be enough evidence.
David Duke destroyed him.
http://apps.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/rahm-emanuel-contributions-2015/
My homeboys.
I’m not creative.
“SAT scores correlate highly with IQ, I believe the correlation is around 0.86.”
They’re different versions of the same test. No surprise there.
“He won the presidency as a complete outsider”
Hahaha. Imagine believing the people of America have a choice in who their “leader” is.
“high math … IQ”
Howard Stern: What’s 17 x 6?
Trump: Eleven twelve. It’s eleven twelve.
It’s clearly 1112
Yeah thats really bad. But you can get flustered in social situations like that. I remember at a Bain interview I said something really dumb. I think I forgot to multiply everything by 2 basically. I did the hard math bit on the aeroplanes right, and the fucking easy one I botched. But this might also have been linked to my severe deterioration mentally by that time.
Some people can have low numerical skills without having a math mind or the reverse. As an example, I have a friend who is a tenured math professor at Orsay and is not able to count.
rr gets what peepee apparently CAN’T.
it’s almost as if rr got whacked.
rr’s an example of how the rate of intellectual maturity and the maximal level in percentile terms can be very different.
that is, rr is smarter than cockring at this point, yet cockring earned a PhD in physics and has a patent iirc.
sad!
and trump’s dad bought his way in to penn.
he transferred from fordham.
his SATs were probably NOT yuge…probably average.
but trump’s genius is NOT measured well by IQ tests.
he’s a genius in a way that has low g-loading.
I dont think trumps a genius in any way.
“he’s a genius in a way that has low g-loading.”
processing speed?
no he thinks trump’s a social genius but thinks social IQ has a low g loading
SIQ definitely does not have a low ‘g-loading.’
High SIQ = cult leader.
if it had a low g-loading more people would be socially savvy and able to navigate the social realm and use it to their advantage.
most people are very average and only capable of rule-following and conformity.
the rarity of “charisma” alone should be enough to dispel this notion.
and before someone says ‘charisma’ is more the result of non-mental traits like body language, certain timbre of voice, etc….
…the people who exhibit charisma are pretty varied in how they express themselves, their voices, their body language, etc.
they know something most people do not.
the problem is that most people are social retards, so testing SIQ at this time is almost impossible.
if it had a low g-loading more people would be socially savvy and able to navigate the social realm and use it to their advantage.
difficulty != g loaded
Very few people can repeat 10 random letters from memory after hearing them once, but memory span is only moderately g loaded.
Very few people can tap their finger 500 times in 30 seconds, but finger tapping is a very low g ability.
Almost everyone can define the word “hungry” yet vocabulary is very g loaded.
difficulty != g loaded
there’s generally a correlation.
and no, being socially savvy is not the same kind of task as “plug chug” repeat letters from short-term memory or tapping fingers or whatever other silly analogy you’re trying to make.
being socially savvy is a hard to describe phenomenon that requires one to figure out unspoken and unwritten rules and then solve problems unique to the individual’s place within a hierarchy utilizing those rules.
so stop trying to equate it with simple yet tedious and difficult tasks.
Didn’t say it was or wasn’t g loaded. Just saying, by definition few people are good at anything, whether it’s g loaded or not.
if social savvy is a task that requires abstract thinking, then the rarity of people excelling in it is evidence of g-loading…like astrophysics
swank
“SIQ definitely does not have a low ‘g-loading.’
High SIQ = cult leader.
if it had a low g-loading more people would be socially savvy and able to navigate the social realm and use it to their advantage.
most people are very average and only capable of rule-following and conformity.
the rarity of “charisma” alone should be enough to dispel this notion.
and before someone says ‘charisma’ is more the result of non-mental traits like body language, certain timbre of voice, etc….
…the people who exhibit charisma are pretty varied in how they express themselves, their voices, their body language, etc.
they know something most people do not.
the problem is that most people are social retards, so testing SIQ at this time is almost impossible.”
COPY!
I think we are pretty much on the same page. I think most people underestimate the level of intelligence that is required to navigate the social world. In fact I think this is probably the one thing that requires the most cognitive bandwidth. Some people have it yet others don’t. Luckily survival, as the way we have structured society is not too dependent on superior social skills. Success might be but survival for the most part isn’t meaning that most people get to focus on their profession or particular specialization without having to worry if the “tribe” is going to kick them out for not being the life of the party so to speak. Leaders have the unenviable task of not only being the life of the party, but also ticking all the other boxes in terms of competence. Unfortunately for Trump he does not tick the all important verbal box(at least not the prescribed way) which is why people give him a hard time. Add to that the fact that his opposition just so happens to be particularly ideologically possessed and incredibly well entrenched in the primary modes of communication(social media, main stream media, hollywood), whose main indicator of competence revolves around verbal acuity(communication), and well it’s not hard to see why we have the current status quo. It won’t change any time soon but for some inexplicable reason Trump is still around and gaining traction by the looks of it. Now if that is not a sign of competence I do not know what is. You may not agree with his policies but there is no denying that Trump’s “big brain” is not just in his head.
it’s a yuge correlation, but kid geniuses and adult geniuses are not the same set. lots of overlap, but not the same.
the education system is prejudiced against “late bloomers”. a little less so in the US than other developed countries. but still fierce.
because the assumption is that the rate of intellectual maturity is the same for everyone. if you were a dumb kid, you must be a dumb adult.
the reality is:
1. some peak early.
2. some peak late.
3. i’m still amazed by the beauty of my perfectly straight, perfectly hard, thick perfect pink cock. if i was a woman…
4. i recall watching an oprah-like show once on “porn for women”. some black woman in the audience said, “but i wanna see his junk.”
yeah. i know. but my junk is a work of art. i look at it and think, “i can’t blame women for wanting to put this inside them.”
above average length too.
interesting article on the british.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/society/11383148/Why-the-aristocracy-always-win.html
but greg clark is involved, so it should be ignored. he has yuge pimples.
a member of the british “upper-middle class” (something very different from the amerircan “upper-middle class”) claims that the rich of 150 years ago in britain are all among the rich of today, and that this is due to…
1. marrying fellow rich people, and NOT getting divorced.
2. public schools.
(for black lesbians “public school” means elite private school in britain. the british term for “public school” is “state school”.)
but why is ampleforth reckoned more elite than stonyhurst?
yes rich people tend to understand marriage.
marrying for love is retarded.
That idiot indian psychiatrist called me schizotypal. Which actually makes a lot of sense for reasons im not going into here…
But the latest guy says I have dashes of autism. Hahaha. He mentioned he goes to church.
I think I probably do have difficulties socially. But its more for the paranoid/fear thing. Im told im quite charismatic when im at ease. His reasoning was that I keep saying things people shouldn’t say. For example, I said everyone knows blacks are dumb, they just won’t say it. Im racist because its a tribal response to a threat. And Blacks are objectively more of a threat than asians or eskimos. Unlike the indian woman, he didnt throw me out of the office for saying that I suppose.
Perhaps I am on the spectrum the autistic way and on the spectrum in the schiz way and they are not polar opposites as animekittys example shows. I am open to this but ive been tested for autism years ago and don’t have it. All you have to say is ‘like playing video games’ and they immediately start thinking about bill gates.
Logic
Emotion
And I don’t speak to him like I speak to someone on the street. I don’t think he realises that if you read all these alt right blogs and are genuinely intellectually curious, you won’t have much an issue with saying ‘racist’ or ‘sacreligious’ or ‘socially inappropriate’ things in a private setting. Very annoyed by his label.
When i look through the list of schizotypal traits I can see the indian woman is right. There are things I never told her that are there. For example, I have derealisation. Thats something I rarely tell psychiatrists because its hard to explain. i.e. I used to ‘feel’ auras or emotional colours around people and places and things until about age 13. Ive read the expert analysis of it and understand whats going on in the brain now. Anyways the russians experimented with nandralone on it and it can somewhat cure it. But you only get that prescribed if youre a heroin addict here. How can someone be a fuckin PC retard and also competent. It doesnt make sense.
Perception
“How can someone be a fuckin PC retard and also competent. It doesnt make sense.”
EGI. Not hanging around minorities. Having the “if it cant be meassured its not true” mentality.
Actually Im very incompetent in my jobs to be fair, and not a fuckin PC retard. I would never hire someone like me. I think being a good worker is definitely related to following rules and accepting what CNN says. I see jobs as a way to make money and solely that outside of a few lifestyle jobs like ski instructor or the army, which i know some guys like.
Trumpy is smarter than the average american.
Here is my reasoning.
Hes right about most of the major social, foreign policy and privately, economic issues.
Hes on the record as supporting universal healthcare, glass stegall, getting rid of carried interest, stopping trade dumping, repealing NAFTA etc etc. How can you be on the record so many times on weird topics like financial regulation, WTO rules or eminent domain and have a coherent philosophy that sounds like common sense?
Answer:
Because he is smart. You can’t keep accidentally pressing the right answer on a pop quiz like that for 30 years. Its impossible. The Trump in those 1980s videos is the real Trump.
All the crap hes said since the running for office is lies. Just like Hilary lied about her support for TPP and universal healthcare or her open borders Goldman Sachs speech for cretinous reasons not IQ reasons.
Even trumpys most idiotic position – the iran thing – is a transparent sop to the the (((neocons))).
Here is my reasoning.
Hes right about most of the major social, foreign policy and privately, economic issues.
your reasoning is that he is smart because he agrees with you.
lol
Yes. Whats wrong with that? Its bulletproof.
No. Trump’s politics are inherently veracious. It’s a level of rationalism that would otherwise be sensible rather than heretical, even amongst Republicans and Libertarians. It’s because he is not an ideologue that he is capable of seeing things clearer than most.
there is no such thing as “veracious politics.”
Senecal, who detailed his role in Trump’s sleeping patterns, food preferences and pet peeves for the New York Times in March, said that he has never discussed his political views of Obama with Trump.
“These are my ideas,” he said. “They have nothing to do with Mr. Trump.”
Senecal most recently saw Trump about one month ago, and said he spoke briefly with him about his successful presidential campaign, which Senecal enthusiastically supports.
Like dozens of Trump supporters CNN has interviewed at Trump rallies across the country, Senecal expressed an intense dislike and hatred for Muslims, whom Senecal referred to repeatedly as “muzzies.”
So when I say these types of things I get called autistic. When he says it, he gets 1 to 1 access to the president where they ‘never speak about politics’ in the 17 years he lived with him. Right.
the point is:
1. despite being a black woman peepee has the world’s highest IQ.
2. black women are sexy…except racism.
all of peepee’s blog posts follow.
this is SAD!
oh my God i’m bleeding…
eh…it won’t kill me.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/05/no-shock-powerful-hate-identity-politics
I had a bit of vomit in my mouth seeing this.
Q Why does Philo read the Guardian?
A: Its sports section is probably the best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina
“It is generally deemed undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of creativity on the part of the author. The reasons for this are that it does not pay due regard to the story’s internal logic (although it is sometimes deliberately used to do this) and is often so unlikely that it challenges suspension of disbelief, allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, though perhaps more palatable, ending”.
https://nationalvanguard.org/2016/12/zuckerbergs-sister-dont-let-the-racists-take-over-the-classics/
Zuckerberg expresses the hope that if classicists “fight back” against Donald Trump and the alt right and emphasize how the field now focuses primarily on diversity, they can keep the academic discipline right-wing-free and in the good esteem of the intelligentsia.
His other sister is intellectually disabled if she genuinely thinks the classics are about ‘diversity’. Ive read a bit of plato, and of course, the bible. People from antiquity don’t strike me as being neutered like the people that sit in her dumb fuckin class now. Their views on women are pretty clear.
The reasoning they would have said, is to prevent women like Donna Zuckerberg being classics professors and saying stupid shit like the above.
You can’t blame jews well at least the ones who are famous and have a popular public profile to be anti-right wing these days. Although all right wingers are not anti-Semitic, some are.
Google ‘Chertoff Kavanaugh’.
Google ‘Chertoff endorsement for 2016’.
serious question!
why do white men still DOMINATE the serial killer league?
because white men are better at everything (they actually make an effort at).
including being evil.
this is sad!
Nah this statement is incorrect lol. Black serial killers are by far more successful at not getting caught. Just look at the Grim Sleeper, evading LAPD for decades. Zodiac Killer had a good run, bit still less impressive than the black serial killers noted in history. Not to mention the domination of blacls in entertaunmeny and athletics. Blacks, if given the same raw intelligemve, would dominate everything. Far more creative and potential to be geniuses.
this isn’t even true.
more blacks are serial killers than whites.
the reason you would think otherwise is because the news media just focuses on white victims more than black victims.
muggy just gets taken for a ride on the ideology train and loves loves loves it.
maybe the entire ‘whites are better’ narrative is a narrative?
like how romans did everything better?
or Egyptians?
or any dominant group?
perish the thought, says muggy.
this time it’s the TRUTH.
swank thinks that some of the things i post are NOT jokes. this is sad!
he might know you were joking if you were actually funny.
you said it was a serious question!
it’s a bad comedian who finds himself being taken literally.
Just heard a stupid Steve Harvey stand-up where he claimed more whites were serial killers than blacks. This just isn’t true.
However, I’ve wondered if white serial killers are more brutal/sadistic/elaborative/creative in their killings than black ones.
weev is just a (bad) comedian.
When I have told reporters I am a “neo-Nazi white supremacist” I am making fun of them in the same manner as when I told them I was the “President of the Gay Nigger Association of America,” because it’s obviously an entirely ridiculous statement.
play down to your much dumber audience or you’ll never be the fuhrer. you’ll just be a (chad) footnote. (a hanging chad)
brown eyes, incredibly short, red beard, parents adopted negroes…
but are there any jews in arkansas?
weev is part something.
at least.
sad!
Creativity does require high perception.
And the ability to put things together in your head.
Genius can see how many things work out.
(James Cameron)
I never took prep.
you can look for the full documentary. i couldn’t find it.
5 Signs You Are HIGHLY Intelligent!
I don’t know PP.. There are a lot of smart people who never attended college but were never racist. Even dumb people. I don’t think racism is a smart or dumb people thing. Its more of a personal trait. And for some due to experience. My friends brother was killed by blacks. After that my friend started hating blacks. He didn’t before that. And some people hate other races if they think they are inferior. And some hate other races if they think they are superior. And some if they think the other races are not similar to them. They don’t get why they are different.
Sorry I should have posted it as a reply to your comment. I am posting this from my phone, and got confused. I was about to post a different comment here and forgot to switch .
Well there is at least a small negative correlation between IQ & racism. The question is why? Maybe it’s mediated by the correlation between IQ & social class (i.e. low IQ people more likely to live in bad areas where they are victimized by blacks or more likely to lose their job to an immigrant, causing resentment)
AVG
Why Intelligent People Find it Hard To Be Happy
yet another stake in the heart of the hereditist vampire.
plomin has found recently that more of the variance in educational attainment is predicted by PGS than variance in IQ in a british sample, 10% vs 16%.
even though as peepee has posted on, educational attainment is much less heritable than IQ in most twin studies.
sad!
Did one of my comments disappear?
Don’t think so.
actually yes. i accidentally pressed the spam button, but now its back.
Thanks for letting me know! I starting to think my recent marijuana consumption was affecting my memory…
Yo Pumpkin is the following possible: test prep decreases the g-loading of a test but increases its predictive value in terms of school performance.
Have a question for Puppy, When you say high IQ people are less tribal, are you saying this is because they tend to have less testosterone, or because they logically think protecting the welfare of other tribes is intelligent or do you mean the Swank idea, that ‘intelligent’ people adopt magic negroes because it helps them ‘fit in’ and this is adaptive ergo being ‘intelligent’.
I mean Swankys jewish philosophy has a serious issue. Lets pretend im born in Iran and I know islam is a stupid cult. As a smart person, do I agree and support the cult. If all smart people support the cult, logically it follows, the cult will perservere until a foreign cult threatens it, or it becomes so extreme is thins out the society it festers in like Jim Jones did in a microcosm.
At the end of the day, someone has to say something, otherwise the sham will continue. And we know from history, the sham can continue for thousands of years in such a fashion.
I read that high IQ people are less racist. I assume it’s because they’re smart enough not to overgeneralize & have the empathy & moral reasoning to think critically about their own genetic interests. But i could be completely wrong. Maybe smart people are just smart enough to pretend to not be racist, or maybe they’re just more likely to be brainwashed because they attend universities.
High intelligence is under recent pressure so it’s expect higher variation of phenotypical psychological expressions. I don’t believe in ”brainswashed”, it’s right wing retard mythology.
Highly intelligent people tend to think beyond food chain, they are not wrong, but because they are more adapted to places over-antropomorphized so most them can’t understand conservative/rural mentality and updated their heuristics/factual understanding.
“I read that high IQ people are less racist.”
Where? Was the author’s surname one of the following: -stein, roth, cohen/cohan/cohn, -berg, etc
Puppy thinks im making it up. But the (((high IQ))) people who are ‘less racist’ are actually more racist than most brainwashed white people watching CNN. Thats the ironic thing about all of it.
no one has to say anything.
every single ideology that involves hierarchy is a “sham cult.”
the purpose of these worldviews is to unite people enough to work together to sustain a society.
when the worldview reaches a point where it can no longer obscure the unjustified inequity that characterizes most every social hierarchy within civilization, there is disarray and the cult fractures/falls apart/loses members.
Why would the lies stop working? Why not last forever?
One of the reasons the West and Asia aren’t as hypersexual is the Freud reason namely, Freud posited that gamma males made up ‘moral’ ideas to stop alpha males banging all the women.
I think I read a stat that throughout history only 30-40% of males born actually procreated. So it follows that before monogamy, this was even more tilted and some lucky guys had harems conan the barbarian style.
So in this case following a cult was good for society overall and stopped the mad max routine. So this is an example puppy could use to say following a cult is actually a meta rational thing.
“good thing” “a meta rational thing”
Wut?
Cult and culture are interchangeable. Humans evolved via cultura, a transferable or mobile environment. It’s impossible avoid culture, it’s must required a rational culture, ethically ”and’ factually correct.
no that’s wrong.
so-called alpha males made the moral rules for divvying up women. the most primitive example of this is a pimp.
a pimp has a lover who he allows lesser men to sleep with for a fee. extrapolate that.
I think I read a stat that throughout history only 30-40% of males born actually procreated. So it follows that before monogamy, this was even more tilted and some lucky guys had harems conan the barbarian style.
no that doesn’t follow at all. the conditions that led to only 40% of males in early civilization procreating are conditions unique to civilization.
humans are not like gorillas, where one gorilla monopolizes an entire harem. humans are somewhere between bonobos and chimps — soft monogamy and pair bonding but still communal.
So in this case following a cult was good for society overall and stopped the mad max routine.
all you do is regurgitate marx re: ideology….
Do you define alpha by wealth? Becuase promicous guys tend to be kinda worthless unless they are some bill Cosby&harvey Weinstein types. Ive heard the Chinese elite still do harems, but I’ve also heard the opposite.
actually gorillas aren’t like gorillas either, though yours is a very common misconception.
so-called beta male gorillas are just as successful at reproduction as silver backs.
what pill may have read was that in victorian britain 30-40% of men never married. i think i’ve heard that, but maybe not. of course married women were more likely to die in child birth, so the figure for women would have been lower? idk.
there’s nothing conservative about civilization. savages never starved, so i hypothesize that men and women were judged attractive or not based indirectly on how likely their children were survive childhood diseases or parturition. swank claims there is no such connection. he’s wrong. good looking people have better immune systems and women with an hourglass figure are less likely to die in childbirth or give birth to an already dead baby. check it out.
swank is jealous of my fWHR = 2.0. and i don’t have a short face, just a wide face.
both bonobos and chimps behave like gay male humans. extreme promiscuity. even savages aren’t like that. generally it’s serial monogamy where each “marriage” lasts until the child can be raised by “the village”, doesn’t need intensive care any more. among savages that’s at about age 4, the same age at which most folks have their earliest memories.
silly me. i meant gibbons.
Operah/classical singers tend to be polyglots* A spanish famous singer knowing italian, german and maybe french languages. Rest in peace cara mia!! In the better peace than this trash over-populated with indignificant people.
Menstrual cycle alters
face preference. While women tend
to prefer masculine male faces (a)
around ovulation, they have a preference
for feminized male faces (b)
at the other days of their cycle.
women are so dumb it’s sad.
With you it’s different*
Well men can grow beard at the time of ovulation and then shave afterwards.
the meta-analyses of that research are conflicting…some say that whole phenomenon is just made up and the product of shoddy research practice.
of course it’s made up.
psychology is a pseudo-science.
not out of cruelty, but out of love.
i have cried a river in my life. always over girls. i’ve asked about surgery. but, sadly, there is no penis reduction surgery.
even the black man afro ridiculed my disability.
peepee should explain why the only other country on earth with free speech is japan.
the answer is obvious: the US wrote its own first amendment into the japanese constitution?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Japan
1. only one country on earth has freedom of speech not insisted upon by another country.
2. no freedom of speech is universal in soi-disant democracies.
3. jews and other aliens in the US are the only supporters of ending free speech. despite its enormous population of shitholers, polls show americans support of free speech more than any other countries people. this means it’s non-shitholer population supports it even more.
conclusion:
1. at least the ex-US elite are retarded. therefore, only a retarded person would want to be elite in any way.
OR
2. the rich and other elites do not have much power ex-US, and these retarded laws are passed despite their objections so far as they participate in politics.
1. is much more likely.
polls show americans support
offree speech more than any other country’s people. this means its non-shitholer population supports it even more.America doesn’t have freedom of speech. When all 6 media companies are tightly run by a cabal something on a piece of paper in practice means nothing. Most schools will teach whatever this cabal says to teach. That was the instigation of ‘common core’ a couple of years ago. The public argument was to tackle evolutionary criticisms from religion….the real reason was to force everyone to listen to an MLK speech 100 times.
Why should television represent my freedom of speech?
That’s dumb, I do not talk on television. I talk elsewhere.
I have no television.
Try going on radio or tv and talking about the jewish Q. You end up like David Duke.
i have 100% proof that asians are DUMBER than whites.
my kung fu is unstoppable.
The intraracial differences are pretty surprising. Especially Ukraine.
ASIANS ARE INTELLECTUALLY INFERIOR TO TANZANIANS AND KENYANS TOO.
SAD!
AND THE POLES AND SPANISH ARE THE SMARTEST PEOPLE IN EUROPE!
Women vote ‘left’ (i.e. globalist) because of higher empathy and less testosterone in my opinion. So the question is whether people with more testosterone/tribalism are more evolutionary rational than women. I would say yes. It has nothing to do with IQ. In fact, people with extreme IQs like Chris Langan tend to start seeing certain contradictions.
Isnt the left more pro-abortion?
I mean isnt that why women vote for it?
Taylor Swift coming out to endorse LGTBQRSTUVWXYZ rights. If you are in certain celeb circles I think it would be impossible to say you vote Trump without killing your career. Especially considering that all the producers, editors, directors, studio owners etc demand a certain view on reality due to their ethnic background. Sad!
I am just curious, are you female? Nothing wrong with that, if my question is coming across like that. I am just curious as you keep on saying women have more empathy. Probably the fourth or fifth time you are saying that.
70-80% of world wide crime is commited by males…
A lot of crime is done for socio-economic reasons.
A lot of people believed this LOL.
I actually wondered if he was an black woman once.
The same shit being repeating ad exaustium since 2009… and they believe they are brighter… it’s sad…
Their qualitative intelligence is super lower.
‘Testosterone’ increase competition animus while rationality is about the balance between competition and cooperation, to begin.
(year born)
grandma (1917) grampa (1903)
uncle (1936) inherited $100,000
uncle (1945) inherited $100,000
aunt (1947) inherited $100,000
uncle (1955) inherited $100,000
mom (1956) inherited $100,000
How Parents Of Baby Boomers Felt About Their Kids
Jordan Peterson: Is the SAT exam really an IQ test?
https://youtu.be/Dx6iEgknhzo
He’s very confused. He claims Ivy League students have IQs of 145 but thinks his own students (he teaches at U of T) are in the 120s. He’s apparently forgotten that his own study found Harvard (mostly non-STEM) students scored in the 120s which is about the same as his own students scored, yet he judges Harvard IQ by their SAT scores, not understanding the selection bias effect.
And the 0.85 correlation between IQ and SAT he cites is with the ASVAB (not an official IQ test). The SAT’s correlation with non-academic tests is much lower.
since when is the ASVAB an academic test?
Academic/knowledge based. It’s 10 subtests include word knowledge, general science, paragraph completion, math knowledge, arithmetic, numerical operations, electronics information.
He repeats Murray . It’s like a propaganda for people who don’t want it. Interesting information is the Toronto average IQ, depending I suppose on program of study is between 120 and 130. As selection is very scholastic based seemingly, Harvard IQ despite being more selective must be only 5 point higher (125-135, for science contentration). Some elite small programs maybe around 140. It’s possible that he had interactions with those concentrators (math applies to social sciences people or philosophy of language)
It’s interesting that a Canadian university might be almost as smart as Harvard, even though Canada has a much smaller population to select from and does not use SATs or any test. I suspect it’s because Canada also doesn’t select students based on non-academic traits like well-roundedness and wealth, and also because Canada has more smart people per capita.
are you sure? “electronic info” is out of place. the rest seem general enough.
i thought there were two induction tests. the ASVAB and something else.
maybe the components aren’t weighted equally.
“He’s apparently forgotten that his own study found Harvard (mostly non-STEM) students scored in the 120s which is about the same as his own students scored, yet he judges Harvard IQ by their SAT scores, not understanding the selection bias effect.”
Well it’s no surprise, he probably realized the limitations of the study he conducted back then. Why would he cite a study that over sampled for women, humanities, poor-middle class, non extreme IQs, as an indication of the average IQ at Harvard? Jordan Peterson is no dummy…It would be interesting to see if they collected data of the participants, concentration, household income etc see how those compare to the harvard average. My feeling is that it won’t even come close, not to mention using only 86 students total, I don’t think that is nearly enough.
The best way to do the research is to randomly select 5% of the male and 5% of the female students from each department and test them.
He cited the IQs of U of T students who were probably also selected the same way & likely also over-sampled women & non-STEM majors. The only difference is Canada doesn’t have SATs so there were no admission scores to contradict the IQ scores
The following is also relevant:
If we are talking about Toronto relative to the Ivy League schools: Toronto ranks near Penn and Cornell above Brown and Dartmouth, the latter two being excellent schools. It is definitely an “Ivy League” quality school along with Caltech, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, Chicago, UCLA, Michigan, and Duke, CMU, too name a few.
And I would expect people with extreme IQs to be more likely, not less, to volunteer for a study about IQ and creativity, though I could be wrong.
“And I would expect people with extreme IQs to be more likely, not less, to volunteer for a study about IQ and creativity, though I could be wrong.”
Well my reasoning is that above a certain level there is an increased likelihood that the person with a high IQ has already been tested or is far too focused on making the next breakthrough than he would be to take an IQ test. So what happens here is that the extremes at the high end are very likely excluded. Having said that we don’t really get the reverse at the low end because due to the highly selective nature of Harvard admissions there will virtually be no sub 100s. By the very fact that someone has made it into Harvard, they will likely consider themselves likely to score high on such tests. However I will agree with you that up to a certain level, say 145ish interest in taking the test will probably be somewhat heightened assuming they had not taken such a test before. In any case I think this sort of selection method is terrible. It needs to be as random as possible 5% of males and females per department should be as objective a method as possible. Maybe they could make this a part of the admission, let the first year students know that they will be randomly selected to take a compulsory IQ test and be compensated for it somehow.
his study of IQ at harvard? give a link.
you know UT is not as selective don’t you?
.85*3 = 2.55.
and soi-disant IQ tests can’t measure above 1 in their sample size, so 1 in 2,500. if they claim to measure higher this is by extrapolation not empirical percentiles.
0.85 might be the correlation with the ASVAB (in the SAT population), but I doubt the general population correlation is that high with the WAIS, the abbreviated WAIS or the Raven, or if it is that high, the regression line begins to flatten at high levels, or maybe Harvard SATs are not +3 SD.
Anyway I believe this is the study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14498785
The key quote is:
Harvard undergraduates (33 men, 53 women), with a mean age of 20.7 years (SD 3.3)… All were recruited from sign-up sheets posted on campus. Participants were paid an hourly rate…The mean IQ of the sample was 128.1 points (SD 10.3), with a range of 97 to 148 points
They did not take the entire WAIS-R but an abbreviated version consisting of just the most g loaded verbal and performance subtest (vocabulary & block design). The Flynn effect probably inflated their scores by a few points at the low end because the WAIS-R was normed a couple decades before the study was done, though I suspect it it underestimated them at the high end because this abbreviated WAIS-R has a ceiling of 145 (scaled score 19) for both subtests, giving the composite score a ceiling of about 150 and some Harvard students would be very close to or above that. Interestingly, they found the test predicted creative achievement in Harvard students all the way up to 150.
And before you dismiss this study as flawed, note the formula Frey & Detterman created predicting Raven IQ from SAT scores:
The formula is as follows:
X’IQ = (0.095 * SAT-M) + (-0.003 * SAT-V) + 50.241
It is interesting to apply this formula to the average Harvard student who scored 1490 on the SAT (reading + math). Assuming the typical Harvard undergrad scored 745 on both the reading and the math section, the formula predicts (based on SATs) they will score 123 on an official IQ test. Note, 123 is NOT their SAT score converted to an IQ equivalent, it’s their expected IQ on the Raven.
So even though Frey & Detterman estimate the correlation between SATs and Raven to be about 0.7 (adjusted for range restriction), the amount of regression their formula predicts seems consistent with a lower correlation or with SLODR.
Swank,
I think the study about cross cultural exanimations about attractiveness didn’t exist but was something i wrongly recalled from memory.
Here’s an substitute study for the idea of people preferring certain traits universally:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces/
Still, your point about these traits not explaining enough variance is still not disproved.
the research on babies is retarded.
babies will prefer faces that look like the average of whatever group the baby has seen.
average = attractive.
that’s it.
they’re likely picking up on familiarity.
the entire idea behind ‘universally attractive’ facial features or whatever else is stupid and cuts against humanity’s main strength in the Darwin games: the ability to learn.
people having the ability to like what they are told to like or what they learn is good for them is a huge advantage.
and it’s probably why when researchers hook up electrodes to the genitals of females, they find that there is almost no correlation between what the women say arouses them and what they find attractive and their actual arousal.
women get aroused by almost anything…images of animals, images of women on women, etc. etc.
and of course men will fuck anything.
the ability to slut in any particular direction…a great strength of humanity.
I guess. But dont you think theres an limit somewhere? Makes sense though.
maybe i can thank blacks for my understanding of freedom of speech. i’m a little surprised i’ve never heard any fellow advocate of free speech use it.
It is reported[1] to have appeared in The Christian Recorder of March 1862, a publication of the African Methodist Episcopal Church,…
what’s “it”?
i learned it in the first grade, and it’s still the best and dispositive argument.
Sticks and stones may break my bones,
But words will never hurt me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones
US judges are extremely suspicious of any exceptions. scalia was against the “fighting words” exception, as am i.
the only legit exceptions are:
1. slander and libel and making statements one knows to be false in order to cause panic and physical injury, “crying ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater”. such speech has no political content. and if it did then it must be protected.
2. nuisance, like a dog that never stops barking, or a neighbor who plays loud music all day long. i have an absolute right to speak, but i also have an absolute right not to hear. so church bells or the muslim call to prayer might be proscribed.
3. physical threats to persons or property. but here the speech itself is not the issue. it’s merely that someone who says, “i’m gonna kill you” or “i’m gonna burn your house down” might actually mean it and therefore should at least be detained and interrogated.
can’t think of any other non-retarded exceptions.
‘US judges are extremely suspicious of any exceptions.’
As a result of the jurisprudence of the Warren Court in the mid-to-late 20th century, the Court has moved towards a baseline default rule under which freedom of speech is generally presumed to be protected, unless a specific exception applies.
activist non-originalist scum.
more jewish lies. how many times do i have to say it?
activist vs whatever is a false dichotomy.
hugo black was the greatest. frankfurter was a cunt.
judicial restraint is gay. AND judicial usurpation is gay.
the original intent of the speech clause of the first amendment is exactly the interpretation that rules today.
stop being a gay black jew!
obama’s mis-speaking reminds me again that two big components of VIQ are…
1. physical coordination…of the speech producing organs…that is, the ability to articulate is strongly correlated with VIQ.
2. something like musical ability. that is, the ability to remember the sound exactly and not just the concept is strongly correlated with VIQ.
the point is VIQ is more than just the ability to bullshit or to argue. it’s something akin to an athletic ability.
so talented singers should have above average VIQs.
unless black.
activist vs whatever is a false dichotomy.
this sounds like something i said when we first started talking about this.
you used to be all about judicial restraint.
the original intent of the speech clause of the first amendment is exactly the interpretation that rules today.
stop lying.
the original intent only concerned criticizing the government and public officials. seditious libel was a very real crime in England. several states had laws on the books against blasphemy and obscenity (vaguely defined) and other forms of expression that would be struck down now.
judicial activism and ignoring original intent is why we have the modern understanding of free speech.
(1) and (2) aren’t VIQ, they’re just rhetorical oratory and aural abilities.
VIQ is doing logic stuff with concepts as communicated via normal vocabulary.
MIQ is doing logic stuff with concepts as communicated with symbols and numbers.
what you’re talking about is doing logic stuff with the physical senses and body.
i learned it in the first grade, and it’s still the best and dispositive argument.
Sticks and stones may break my bones,
But words will never hurt me.
muggy knows this isn’t true.
words hurt people.
if words didn’t hurt people, suicides over cyber and other non-physical/violent bullying wouldn’t exist.
Time. Place. Manner. aka Class.
That’s what you should have learned.
Anglo dipshit.
I bet you would like all of society to look like that swampy mudpit you call a homeland.
FIX IT!
your blog has horrible problems with extra pages.
you can probably select a longer page.
and it’s NOT rape.
female chimps and bonobos are like mae west.
it’s interesting how you can see in lionel richie’s body why white women might prefer white men for purely aesthetic reasons.
AND why black men dominate most sports.
this is sad.