In his book, A Question of Intelligence: The IQ Debate in America, the late journalist Daniel Seligman describes a four hour conversation he had with the late Arthur Jensen.
Seligman couldn’t resist asking the man who had not only launched the IQ debate in America, but dominated it for decades, what his own IQ was. From page 63 of the book:
I once asked Jensen if he knew his own IQ. It turned out that he had never taken any of the standard tests, like the WAIS. The question of testing him first arose during the year of his Maryland internship, but by then he could not take the WAIS because he was too familiar with it (having administered it to others perhaps a hundred times). Of the various mental tests he has taken over the years, the Terman Concept Mastery Test (CMT) __ a high-level measure of verbal skills__probably provides the best approximation of an IQ test. Jensen took it when he was forty-three. He declined to tell me the score__and seemed distinctly unhappy at my interest in the subject__but did finally mention that his CMT score was about at the average of those members of Terman’s Gifted Group who had gone on to earn Ph.D.s.
Poking my nose into volume 5 of Terman’s Genetic Studies of Genius, I learn that this subgroup of the gifted had Stanford-Binet IQ equivalents of 156, well into the 99.9 percentile. Which possibly helps to explain why Jensen has been such a dominant figure in the IQ debate.
Because 156 is a truly stratospheric IQ, even for a man as intellectually influential as Jensen, I wanted to know more. And how would a test given to adults be assigned a Stanford-Binet equivalent, when the Stanford-Binet (at the time of the Terman study) was scored using age ratio scores (a method that only works up to adolescence).
Luckily, I found a (poorly formatted) copy of volume 5 of Terman’s Genetic Studies of Genius. Table 15 shows the adult CMT scores of the Terman Gifted Group who obtained PhDs. Contra Seligman, the average score for this group appears to be 159, not 156, and it appears to be a raw score, not an IQ equivalent.
What IQ does a raw score of 159 on the CMT equate to? Ideally, you’d want a sample of the general U.S. (white) population to take the CMT, but since general population samples are hard to get, and are often too small to norm rare scores, psychometricians (including Ron Hoeflin) often use a technique called score-pairing, where a sample of convenience takes two tests, one of which has already been normed, and it’s assumed that the IQ distribution of the test with known IQ equivalents will match the IQ distribution of the test with unknown IQ equivalents. This assumes of course that relative to the general population, the convenience sample (as a group, not necessarily as individuals) would score equally high, and equally variable on both tests. This assumption is justified in cases where there’s no reason to assume a particular convenience sample would have an advantage on one test over another.
In a 1985 study, 150 Berkeley students were tested on both the CMT and the Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM). Their raw scores (means and standard deviations) on the CMT and APM (set II, time limit up to an hour and 15 minutes) were M = 81.69, SD = 32.8 and M = 27.24, SD = 5.14, respectively. From these equivalencies, score pairing suggests that Jensen’s CMT score of 159 (+2.36 SD relative to the Berkeley bell curve) equates to an APM score also +2.36 SD relative to the Berkeley bell curve:
The APM equivalent of Jensen’s CMT score = 2.36(Berkeley APM SD) + (Berkeley APM Mean)
The APM equivalent of Jensen’s CMT score = 2.36(5.14) + 27.24
The APM equivalent of Jensen’s CMT score = 39
In other words, Jensen’s CMT score equates to an APM score that is 3 raw score points above the APM’s ceiling of 36!!! This does not mean Jensen would have hit the ceiling on the APM of course (most high scores on one test regress a lot to the mean on the other); rather it means that if he scored as well on the APM as he did on the CTM, he’d be above the APM ceiling (under a 75 minute time limit).
Thus, to determine Jensen’s IQ equivalent on the CTM, we must determine the IQ equivalent of an APM score of 39.
In the same study, another group of Berkeley students took both the APM and the WAIS. Their scores were M = 28.23, SD = 5.08, and M= 122.84, SD = 9.3. Because the WAIS scores were expressed as IQs, not raw scores, we can use score pairing to assign WAIS IQ equivalents to APM scores, but before doing so, we should note that WAIS norms were several decades old by 1985 (in the Minnesota transracial adoption study, parents in 1985 scored 5 points lower on an abbreviated WAIS-R than they had on an abbreviated WAIS ten years earlier, suggesting the WAIS was 5 points to generous by 1985). So deducting 5 points from their WAIS IQs of Berkeley students, score pairing tells us that APM set II score (75 minute time limit) of 28.23 = IQ 117.84, and every 5.08 points above or below 28.23, add or subtract 9.3 IQ points.
From here, we can estimate that a 39 on the 75 minute APM in 1985 (and thus a 159 on the CMT) equaled a WAIS IQ of 138.
One problem though is Jensen took the CTM at age 43 circa 1966 while the Berkeley students took in their early 20s (on average) circa 1985. On the one hand this might give Jensen an unfair advantage since middle aged adults do slightly better on verbal tests than younger adults. On the other hand it might have given him a slight disadvantage since older birth cohorts sometimes do slightly worse on verbal tests than newer cohorts. Likely both factors cancel out.
A king among men
To realize just how impressive an IQ of 138 is, it is useful to compare it to our best and brightest: the students at the most elite universities in the entire World:
After correcting for old norms, a sample of Harvard students averaged IQ 122 on an abbreviated version of the WAIS-R . After correcting for old norms, a sample of Dartmouth students averaged IQ 122 on the WAIS. Meanwhile a sample of Oxford students apparently averaged IQ 116 on the Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM). On average, studies of the most elite university students show a mean IQ of 120.
Of course It’s likely this is an underestimate. The samples who volunteer for such studies might be disproportionately drawn from psychology students, leaving higher IQ STEM students underrepresented. Some tests may not have sufficiently high ceilings in all domains for the brightest students in the samples to show their full ability. Tests like the APM might be biased against more verbally oriented intellects. In addition, correcting for old-norms may over-correct, because the Flynn effect has been exaggerated in my opinion.
Given all this, perhaps the true average IQ of the World’s most elite universities is actually 125-130. Even still, with an IQ of 138, Jensen could have walked into any one of them, and cognitively towered over most of the students and professors.
He was not just a king among men, as the journal Intelligence christened him, but a king among the intelligentsia. A man who took a field as fluffy as psychology, and turned into rigorous science. There’s no one who even comes close; no heir apparent on the horizon.
“He’s probably a Genius,” gushed the late J.P. Rushton, who many regard as a Genius himself.
Even Geniuses make mistakes
And yet for all Jensen’s Genius, he did make three mistakes in my humble opinion, reminding us that even IQ 138 minds have their limits. The first and most egregious was citing regression to the different population means (when predicting offspring IQ from the IQ of parents) as evidence of racially genetic IQ differences (see section nine of a paper he co-wrote). Regression to the mean is caused by imperfect correlations, it has nothing to do with genetics per se. Charles Murray understood this in his book Coming Apart, but so many HBDers do not.
The second mistake (as described by commenter Mug of Pee) was failing to adequately consider reaction norms in any of his writings, even though it could potentially alter the interpretation of heritability studies. Time will tell if this mistake was a serious one.
Lastly, when he was first told about the Flynn effect, he dismissed it as artifact of culturally loaded tests and predicted it would be less apparent on culture reduced tests like the Raven Progressive Matrices. It turned out the Raven showed the greatest Flynn effect of all, according to James Flynn, so Jensen was not just wrong, but the opposite of right. Of course I suspect the Flynn effect on the Raven has been exaggerated.
If Jensen’s is the only book you ever read, that will be enough
When people visit my home, the first thing they do is going running through the halls like a kid in a candy store searching for the library. “My God, you know so much,” one disappointed woman told me, “I was expecting to find the library of Congress in your basement”
Soon she was sobbing: “I just want to know what you know, I want to see what you see, I want to be where you’ve been mentally.”
The truth is I haven’t read a lot of books, I explained. I’ve read one book a lot. And I hand her an old crumbling copy of The g Factor, by Arthur Jensen.
Pumpkin Person 
i went to a mensa event 3 years ago at cambridge and realised i was the most verally intelligent person in the room . I have met plenty of people better than me at math or music or drawing. I think if i didnt have add i could be a decent mechanical or civil engineer but definitely not a theoretical physcist or codebreaker. i find non human subjects intensely boring. i much prefer reading juicy celeb gossip or reading about sports drama.
Also the average iq of ivy league and oxbridge may if anything use stem students scores to bump UP the average. you would get a lot of extrene autists like terry tao clocking in 160 type scores especually at post grad level. i heavily dout you would get the corresponding extremes at the othet end e.g. people like my dad who cant even spell basic words.
So you begun here and…
As i have famously always said – higher level learning is higher level learning of more brainwashing and sophistry to be serviceable to the elites. People like me and mikey and jimmy are basically too dangerous. We actually critically think about the nonsense out there.
But none of your critical thinking is original. You’re a poor man’s Kevin macdonald clone.
Hahaha.
I wouldn’t mind getting a little brainwashed if it meant getting a degree from Harvard, Princeton, or Yale loool.
It’s all about the brand.
You’re dangerous for yourself. People who talk too much about themselves, how dangerous they are, it’s likely not to be. You’re exactly what your jewish gods expected to be, a guy who love associate white race with psychopathy. This is so obvious, so ancient way to make someone look bad for others.. A basic lesson of psychology your primitive and defective instincts never will teach you. A true psychological master know how to navigate in any area, from the most sensible to the most insensible, you just can’t be an angel and a demon, and in the middle of this path, you’re just a pill.
Pill, the past was a lot more politically correct. Today, everyone is and will always be a racist.
I disagree, I think what is happening today is people conflating the state of being race conscious(to be frank something that will never ever go away completely) with actual racism. There is a difference with simply being aware of racial differences as opposed to using them as an excuse to invest oneself in hatred. Similarly there is a difference with advocating for the interests of your people(starting with family, sub-group, sub race, race and finally humanity overall) and pursuing the interests of your people at the dire expense of others. The latter in all the above examples are real racism IMO while the former are the characteristics of any human being with a pulse that is well adjusted and properly orientated.
I want the best for humanity and the best for all people(even those that I could quite readily call my “enemies”) but my priorities lie with the people that made me who I am and gave me my values and my genes. This does not mean I hate all other people though, nor does it mean that i will defend my people even when they are clearly in the wrong. Some, quite frankly stupid lefties, think that if you are not doing backflips to project how much you are not a racist(by proclaiming undying and indiscriminate love for all people, especially those unlike yourself) even going as far as to denegrate your own people to elevate others then you are not a good human being and you might as well join the nazi party. I find such people fake and/or stupid.
AFAIC the individual comes first and foremost(character, personality, values etc) and then one could choose to entertain secondary characteristics like their race religion and ideology if they prove to be of relevance(unfortunately sometimes they can be and only a fool would ignore them, for example an otherwise good person that appears to be taking a stance that is to the unjustifiable detriment of your own people).
Race consciousness can’t escape racism, my friend. Being racist is a sign of higher status nowadays. It’s crazy. It’s inherent in them.
“Race consciousness can’t escape racism”. Well I’m fairly cognizant of people’s height in that this to a small often times trivial degree feeds into my perception of that person, does this make me a heightist? I think the concept of racism is applied incorrectly by a lot of people today covering anything from race awareness to outright targetted violence towards people of a specific race. Unfortunately the word is so stigmatized and tainted to the degree that it is synonymous with all it’s worst iterations. I’m quite happy with the dark interpretation but only if people take the time to differentiate it from the benign harmless perhaps even necessary iterations. As such the qualifying factor for racism in my book is “unjustified hatred of an entire group of people”(a race or ethnicity so to speak). It is that hate that makes racism a negative and perhaps dangerous thing. Knowing that asians are slightly shorter and have certain broad group characteristics means nothing other than one has a keen eye for detail and an affinity for classifications(note that some virtue signalling non racists reject any form of classification for this reason). I see the ability to classify as a mark of intelligence. It’s only when this is unjustifiably associated with feelings of hatred that it becomes a problem. Note that if the hatred is justified(ie history of violence between two groups) then it’s not quite racism as there is some justification for the hate. Though perhaps a more sophisticated approach might require one to judge individuals differently from their group identity and their group identity differently from the transgressions of some individuals in the past. I believe we are all able to do this extremely well which is all the more baffling to me that some still insist in using the low resolution interpretation of racism whereby even being aware of race makes you a racist synonymous with a nazi.
“I’m fairly cognizant of people’s height”
Imagine being short. I’d just jump off the nearest bridge.
RR
LOL I wouldn’t go that far, but I will agree that being short puts you at a reproductive disadvantage. It’s fun to notice the effects height has on people’s behavior/personality.
I’m really short, less than 5’6″. Where do I stand (get the pun)?
People certainly treat me a lot worse for being shorter than them. I’m not cognizant about peoples’ heights but by their movements. Like I’m overly-conscious about getting beaten up that I think it’ll happen.
“I’m really short, less than 5’6″. Where do I stand (get the pun)?”
LOL Well tbh how well you are endowed vertically does not matter nearly as much as what you have horizontally between the ears.
Height isn’t everything, some of the baddest moth***ers I have known were no taller than you are. What matters is how you carry yourself.
I’m only a little over average at 5′ 11″ but thankfully I have a propensity for a robust musculature so I’ve never had anyone try to mess with me. You never know though, all it takes is a 6’4″ 250 lb athletic monster on a bad day to cause some serious damage.
Would you be willing to trade 1 SD of height for 1 SD of muscle mass? What about 2 SD?
Thank you, Pumpkinhead, for the inspirational words. I will it take it dearly to heart and hopefully we will have many great discussions the likes the world hasn’t seen.
I’m a bit above average too (5 10, average is 5 8). I’d end it all if I were even an inch shorter. So I keep my posture perfect and make sure my macros and micros are in order so I don’t shrink as I age
“Well tbh how well you are endowed vertically does not matter nearly as much as what you have horizontally between the ears.”
Too bad the first thing women see is literally height. Height matters in life. From relationships to work.
I thought the average was 5’9″? That’s my height plus I’m taller than both my parents
It says the average is 5 9 and a half. I wouldn’t mind being 6 ft but I like my height now. I have long arms and legs which I like since I love pulling exercises.
Why trade height for muscle mass when you can train and eat well and get bigger?
Because training & eating well are hard and few men increase a full SD let alone 2. Average is closer to 5’10”
“Average is closer to 5’10””
Yea you’re right.
Training and eating well are not hard if you know what you’re doing. How much of an increase is one and two SDs?
For male height it’s about 2.9 inches. For males muscle mass, I don’t know, but on a normal curve it’s like this:
+2 SD = 98th percentile
+1 SD = 85th percentile
0 SD = 50th percentile
-1 SD = 15th percentile
-2 SD = 2nd percentile
So to increase by even 1 SD you have to surpass a lot of people who are currently above you
RR
“Too bad the first thing women see is literally height. Height matters in life. From relationships to work.”
Well ain’t that the bitter truth, it looks like the bare minimum is 6 foot these days(assuming you are looking for a real looker) though I think for most women once you are at or above average then it’s not that much of a big deal provided they aren’t exceptionally tall for a girl themselves. I think something that matters far more than anything else(even height) with women is confidence.
I’ll look for stats on muscle mass PP.
Re height. There are a lot of women who will overlook men based on their height. I personally have never been overlooked on the basis of my height, as my confidence and body speak for themselves.
Short guys have it really hard. I see guys that are like 5 4 and I feel really bad for them. One of my instructors is 5 4, though, and he has no problem getting girls and work. He’s also a bodybuilder and trainer, so that probably plays a part.
If you’re not vertically gifted, then you better have a good personality/drive to make up for that because women won’t want you if you don’t.
pumpkinperson
“Would you be willing to trade 1 SD of height for 1 SD of muscle mass? What about 2 SD?”
Well that is an interesting question actually. See for me too much height AND too much muscle mass are off putting(I think even for women too). I think that the ideal height for men is 6′ 1″, just at the sweet spot between athleticism and overall size( in terms of intimidation and appeal). I Believe that is at 1 SD above average. As for weight I think for my height lean, 1 SD extra puts me at around 195-200 lb. That happens to be my actual weight but not quite as lean as i would like it. In any case 6’1” at 175 lb is far too skinny for my liking, so assuming it would either be one or the other and fixed for life I might opt for the muscle mass instead putting me at 200 lb lean 5’11” guy.
My upper limit is 240 lb at 6’4” and my ideal is 6’1” 220 lb.
I think women actually probably look at lean weight or what I would call “intimidation factor” more than actual height(in an ideal world they would probably opt for both but lean weight takes precedence). As such I doubt a woman would go for a 6’1” 175 lb guy over a 5’10, 200 lb guy. At the end of the day what they care about is a guy that can protect them and nothing makes a girl feel more confident than a confident competent guy(regardless of height or weight).
LOADED
You’re welcome!
The whole point of race consciousness is to promote a race over another, thus demonstrating racism. Or maybe another definition of racism is when stereotypes are applied to people. In that case, it’s never been any worse than it is right now.
There is nothing wrong in promoting(pursuing the interests of) your race as long as it doesn’t come to the dire detriment of others. Now often people conflate this with the idea that If there are winners there must be losers and as such any kind of promotion is detrimental to others, ergo any kind of ethnocentrism is racist. Bollocks! Total garbage, there is a clear difference between healthy competition and group advocacy from clear outgroup denegration disposession and subjugation. These sort of simplified definitions are concocted by leftist propagandists in order to control the narrative and stigmatize their opponents.
A scientist is conscious of differences between particles, objects, animals, and more does this make a scientist evil? No what makes someone evil(racist) is when their racial discrimination(as in the ability to notice differences) is associated with unjustified hatred. Stereotypes don’t make you a racist, stereotypes sometimes turn out to be quite accurate yet others are wrong and or oversimplified, so it may signal intelligence in someone or ignorance. I think what you mean is prejudice which when applied to race one could describe as “unfair stereotype + negative bias” often motivated by hatred. Things get tricky however when there is some element of truth to their preconceptions which makes this whole topic a minefield to navigate(given how furiously the supposed egalitarian left are slaving over picking up on even the slightest slip up which they will invariably conflate with “racism”).
Stereotypes area heuristic we use, a rather productive one. On the other hand, stereotypes can be confused with having a lot of consciousness about one’s own race. It’s like self-consciousness. It signals weakness. Consciousness about race also signals weakness because we should all be focused on how we’re doing as individuals, not as a race. At least that’s my hot take on it.
Stereotypes are often prejudices, a partial understanding of the whole of specific reality. The big picture is the otherwise of prejudice.
Oprah
Indeed stereotypes do sometimes come in the form of a prejudice but it’s not always clear whether the person that subscribes to it does so out of ignorance or malice. Which is why i think people need to stop throwing the word racist around as much as they do. Real racists are few and far between, most people are either ignorant, misinformed, or misunderstood. Factoring in race in your social perceptions(as we all invariably do) is a very tricky thing to do(however harmless and academic your intentions are), particularly in the age of unconscious bias, micro aggressions and inherent racism. You look at someone the wrong way and they’ll throw the R word at you, it really is quite ridiculous. I think most of these people are race hustlers and are just gaming the system.
“Stereotypes area heuristic we use, a rather productive one. On the other hand, stereotypes can be confused with having a lot of consciousness about one’s own race. It’s like self-consciousness. It signals weakness. Consciousness about race also signals weakness because we should all be focused on how we’re doing as individuals, not as a race. At least that’s my hot take on it.”
Agreed, the thing is however the whole topic is far more complicated and far reaching particularly on a political level which is why we simply can’t chalk such conflicts up to a simple concept such as racism.
Honestly, my verbal fluency skills are off-the-fucking-charts.
My general knowledge used to be off-the-charts too. Sadly, not so much anymore.
My once touted crystallized intelligence is long gone.
I sincerely think rap producers are the best people on the planet.
Oh jesus christ what a fuckin retard you are.
jesus HATE evil people pill, do you knew*
Sobbing? What? What was the deal with that woman? Big fan of yours?
Guys, what does bragging about your IQs have to do with the topic?
HBD is where geniuses come to brag about their IQs, normie. You wouldn’t understand.
maybe everyone’s verbal fluency is off the charts nowadays. I see a lot of people speaking very eloquently but acting egregiously.
You honestly sound like you take speed or some other amphetamine.
Pill’s ancestors were also the ancestors of the majority of redneck North America. Especially the Appalachians and what not.
I don’t think pill is even white to be honest
he has said that he is half east asian but maybe it was in jest
Hahaha! That’s funny. See Pill, you’re not even white, aha.
He’s a white pardo.
I try to read books, but reading is boring.
I also hate read, i love deal with ideas.
Hahaha
I love reading. I read a book a week.
If only I could read a 300-400 page book a week….Actually, that’s my new years’ resolution. I just can’t seem to concentrate. I have like 3 books half read right now, partially because lost of interest, but mostly because they require a lot of thinking, and I get bogged down by the constant thinking. My issue is really that comprehending while reading takes time for me, since it is a throughput and processing issue, resulting in having to re-read certain parts. That sucks.
I could probably just straight shoot page after page, but I feel like I won’t remember anything meaningful. So I suppose my procrastinating is how I hope to have whatever information I took in settled. Maybe passively ruminate over what I read so it doesn’t get displaced by more information.
High school reading, where annotation is required, made me hate reading. I haven’t read for personal reasons, completely, since maybe 10 years ago.
You’re a case of people who have a mini library in the house BUT… don’t understand more than a half of what they read…
Yea you don’t know what you’re talking about.
At least your books are half read. My books are only read to page 2.
Learn how to speed read and keep notes. That’s what I do with everything I read. I’ll write a summary of what I read in the day to keep it fresh.
Santo is making sense for once. Reading and memorizing(taking notes) vast amounts of books is not the same as understanding the point and implication of every concept within them.
Yea, surely that’s all I do with what I read Melo.
I didn’t say that. But clearly you don’t read slow enough or something.
You cant concentrate because youre so used to clicking through on things and your smartphone.
When I was younger and there was no internet I had a lot of concentration to read big boring books like Moby Dick and the Bible or whatnot. Now my mind hesitates to read because im used to the instant espresso like ‘hits’ I get from reading something simple like a blog or watching a video.
Great point.
”Santo is making sense for once”
It’s not my business your misunderstanding, it’s yours. You even try to understand most what i wrote here* Or because i’m progressive your bias prevent you to do it*
Oh god, I still don’t know how English teachers don’t realize that the way they’re going about teaching English class is making kids hate reading. School always have brilliant ways of fucking things up.
Stephen Moore looks like an older version of a friend of mine at JP Morgan. He talks so much nonsense Im surprised his corporate sponsors dont have logos on his clothes.
Musical magic. I don’t know how they got the song to sound like this with 50s production equipment.
This song is prominent in American Graffiti 2. American Graffiti, the original one is my favourite movie of all time.
pp.
please estimate Aesop Rock’s IQ. he’s a rapper that is so far beyond everyone, that no one understands him. but he raps about “mundane” topics like his cat or his parents reaching out too much.
Contrary to some commenters, I mostly read books (90% of my reading time outside of work), because it is the place where the concentration of interesting and articulated ideas is the highest, at least that that I know of.
The best part is good university handbook that teaches a new field from scratch (like economy, physics, mechancic, medicine, logic, philosophy) handbooks. Second in line are books that summarize recent research, that are more interesting, but of very even quality. And then they are books on topics I happened to be interested at a particular moment (after reading Kevin McDonal, I am interested about the history of the Jews, during neo-Babylonian, phenician, Greek Hellenistic and Roman period).
What kind of philosophy books do you read? You should check out I Am Not A Brain by Markus Gabriel. I really like it. I need to stop buying books. The most recent book I bought (last night) is From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology. Before that I bought Above the Gene, Beyond Biology: Toward a Philosophy of Epigenetics and before that I bought Biology and Feminism and Genetic Ethics.
I mostly only read on my free time (and blog).
being overly conscious about anything is a major detriment. Look at Pill, he has schizophrenia but he’s not conscious about it at all.
People who can’t understand they are being controlled by their subconscious, instincts OR biases are just like prokaryote cells.
Thanks.
Jensen was very bright. 138 seems plausible though a bit low. I assumed 145 and left it at that. He was also highly industrious.
Regression to the mean: I initially thought it was a particularly good argument, but Razib Khan and others pointed out that genetic regression happens at the first cross-mating, which I had not understood. You say: Regression to the mean is caused by imperfect correlations, it has nothing to do with genetics per se. I agree, though I understand how anyone could have thought it happened every time.
I didn’t know he initially rejected the Flynn effect. Jim Flynn told me that when he told Jensen about it, Jensen replied “I didn’t realize the field was in such a mess”. They worked together on it, Jensen suggesting ways it could be tested. By the way, modern day researchers are dubious about the reality of the Flynn effect, and that includes Flynn, and also somewhat Deary, I think.
One reason that Jensen’s intelligence may have been under-estimated is that he wrote to be understood.
Thanks for your work
best
James
Jensen was very bright. 138 seems plausible though a bit low. I assumed 145 and left it at that. He was also highly industrious.
Well maybe his true IQ is higher than 138 because the CMT only measures verbal IQ and the score pairing technique is not fool proof.
Regression to the mean: I initially thought it was a particularly good argument, but Razib Khan and others pointed out that genetic regression happens at the first cross-mating, which I had not understood. You say: Regression to the mean is caused by imperfect correlations, it has nothing to do with genetics per se. I agree, though I understand how anyone could have thought it happened every time.
Not sure what Razib’s point is (I’d have to see the full context of the discussion) but my point is that even if the black-white IQ gap were 100% environmental, you’d still expect the children of IQ 120 blacks and IQ 120 whites to regress to the mean of 85 and 100 respectively, simply because your best guess for a person’s IQ (if you know nothing else about them) is in between their parents’ IQ and their population’s normal IQ simply because most people resemble their parents yet by definition most people are normal. For example the height gap between people today and people in WWI is thought to be 100% environmental, but we’d still expect a man in WWI to be shorter than a man today, even if both men had a dad who was 6’6″. They’d regress to different means for environmental reasons.
I didn’t know he initially rejected the Flynn effect. Jim Flynn told me that when he told Jensen about it, Jensen replied “I didn’t realize the field was in such a mess”. They worked together on it, Jensen suggesting ways it could be tested.
I read somewhere that Flynn claimed Jensen originally thought the Flynn effect would be much less on the Raven. Can’t find the source at the moment.
By the way, modern day researchers are dubious about the reality of the Flynn effect, and that includes Flynn, and also somewhat Deary, I think.
Well one can believe that test scores have increased by the equivalent of 3 IQ points per decade on the U.S. Wechsler for example, yet be doubtful that the increase reflects a genuine rise in intelligence. I’m actually doubtful that even the scores have increased by that much. I doubt Flynn would share my skepticism on the latter point.
Thanks for your work
And thank you for commenting!
What would a seven point difference make?
If we equate it to terms of height 7 IQ points is about 1 and a half inches.
Ask any female race they will say 1 and a half inches makes a big difference. And of course so will Pumpkin cough Crowley in March cough
Yea even one inch of height is very noticeable. I see a big difference standing next to someone who’s 5 9.
I thank the Height Gods that I’m my height. I have long limbs and big hands and feet so I at least got that going for me.
On avg, it’s dependent the ”place” in the bell curve. For example, 72 IQ versus 79 IQ. Or 92 IQ versus 99. 105 IQ versus 112 IQ. On general, you know it’s mean more people in the top of bell curve and less people in the Button.
SUBTLE differences…
Phil is
1) very conscious he is in a schizo spectrum
2) conscious schizo influences his world-view and building a weltanschaung
3) quite conscious that it is build up on very old memes but with some idiosyncrasies he probably over-estimates as well as the depth of his enlightment, as everyone else
4) disagreeing with many on the question if his views are true. Schizo have been well represented among visionary artists moréable than others to understand trends that are obvious to them and hidden to others. The test of the hollow mask illustrates how sometimes it’s an advantage to be schizo and not benefit from normal top-down cortical treatment of information, not normalizing the ab-normal data.
So Phil is more of an asset …
PP, what’s the social IQ of a non-conservative who knew Mueller would come back empty-handed?
Above average. 🙂
Mueller came back ’empty handed’ not because there was nothing to try someone with but because the elites that like trump probably negotiated with the elites that didn’t for mueller to ‘come back with nothing’. Why do you think Trump is so insanely pro Israel? Mueller also ‘came back with nothing’ on hilary even though everyone knew she was using the foundation as a slush fund. Once you get to a certain level in the social order, law and justice come down to power, not law. e.g epstein
Trump is pro-Israel because of appealing to evangelicals, whom he finds the quintessential expression of American religiosity in, and Kushner. Anyone in the establishment could do what Trump is doing. Even Obama could have done it, but surprisingly had some reservations, and didn’t have this level of narcissism. Though to be fair, he didn’t have to prop himself up when others were willing to do it for him – like giving a Nobel Peace prize for absolutely nothing.
Mueller came empty-handed because obviously the whole thing was a canard, later made out to be a farce. Anyone with a brain could see the obvious contrivance being formed real-time. Even the report that showed majority agreement within the intelligence agencies were very nuanced in their claim. They artfully used the word “hack” to insinuate technological undermining, when it was simply journalistic contravening of fake news, as the actual “evidence” given. Literally the establishment paradigm is based on lying to the public – and Wikileaks being at the forefront of exposing these under the table dealings, that put our security at risk, have been labeled with the same Russian prop label.
I get Trump is full-on neocon now, but that doesn’t change the obvious contempt for the people the elites have, and for Trump (since the establishment is now run by liberal elites), that emboldened them to impudence. The whole system runs to give the impression of decorum, but it’s corrupt as hell.
Anyone with half a brain and their dog could have figured out that Muller would come back with nothing.
Schizophrenia is a condition of having too much connectivity between left and right hemispheres of the brain and too much communication between the two as well. Oftentimes, things that should be processed by only one side of the brain become processed by both hemispheres, thus causing extremely unpleasant experiences. At least that’s my understanding of what schizophrenia is.
Psychosis and schizophrenia and any perceptual problem within the brain is due to a part of the brain processing something it shouldn’t be. Stupidity is when something is not processed when it should be.
I don’t have full on schizophrenia. If I did, it would be really obvious without me having to say it. Its a spectrum.
low. he should always be referred to as “densen”.
Seriously where were you?
PP or Mugabe etc
Again, around what time did Mugabe eat al comment on Infoproc. Becuase i want to read his trolling.
[redacted by pp, March 25, 2019]
shoe now approves all comments and he has 1/10th the number. fake IPs are identifiable.
2016 and before iirc.
I wont stand for the bullying and intimidation of other commenters. Anime has a right to post videos of himself explaining how his brain works. Keep your own jealousy to yourself or try to improve to get to animes level of knowledge.
Is it better to speak out against the government, and die, or live in fear?
You base this on Jensen’s result on CMT, a purely verbal test, but shouldn’t you to take in consideration the correlation with a full IQ test battery like WAIS is maybe 0.7?
Ideally we’d like his score on more than one test, or if has the be just one, a comprehensive one like the WAIS.
You should try and find/estimate the IQ of Michael Levin (author of Why Race Matters Michael Levin; multiple well known people have the name). There’s limited info available because he’s not super popular, but would certainly be interesting.
Thanks for the suggestion
I’ve been working through some intelligence literature in the last few months. In multiple sources, I’ve seen it claimed that about 115-120 is considered ‘college’ material. Now we know that standards have dropped dramatically over the last decades, so this may be an old figure that was repeated in the literature. Regardless, Harvard expects its applicants to be the best student in their high school – ever. It’s hard for me to believe that the IQ quoted above is the mean at Harvard or any other elite school. I’m guessing that the mean of students who earn their way in (putting aside the daughters of TV stars, athletes, and affirmative action admits) would be right about the gifted level – 130.
That would make sense
Pumpkin, are teens just worse at picking up patterns of repetitions vs the actual patterns themselves, hence the uneven scores on the WAIS matrix vs Ravens Matrices. It can’t just be the fact that the adults have more time at home. Their brains would arguably be more fried than a high schooler, and if anything is not graded, they’d be more laid back, but they’d still try.
Pumpkin, are the negative practice effects shown in the official WAIS test retest scores most likely from regression to the mean for people with 110+ IQs? Sources say that regression to the mean is likely to happen in High Average to Very High scores, but it also said that certain aspects can attenuate those regression to the mean, so are the negative practice effects most likely regression to the mean?
24:40 I recommend you this part of the interview. Jensen was certainly right