In my last article I used the demographic approach to estimate a reader’s IQ. This is used when you lack psychometric data, but you know other details statistically related to test scores. This method is most often used when dementia is suspected but the patient has no psychometric history, thus the only way to check if cognition has declined is to estimate the expected level of past IQ. Such estimates are made from demographic variables like education, occupation and race, but I like to add physical variables like head size, height, body mass index etc, hence I renamed it bio-demographics.
In part 2 we take a historiometric approach. Like the biodemographic approach it’s also used when we don’t have test scores per se, but we do have a cognitive history amenable to quantitative analysis. For example if I know you learned to read at age 5, while the average kid can’t learn until 6, I might estimate your IQ is 120, since you were cognitively functioning at 120% your age level.
Another example might be when Homo Erectus was said to have the mind of a modern European 7-year-old because the tools they made could not be learned by children younger. This might also be called cognitive archeology, a term James Flynn used.
The reader wrote:
I was precocious only with respect to verbal ability. My kindergarten teacher evidently told my mother that I had the most extensive vocabulary of any child she had taught in a 20 year period. Her typical class probably consisted of 20 students, so I take this to mean that I had the most advanced vocabulary out of ~400. Half of the students at this school were white, and the other half black.
Of course being at the one in 400+ level at this particular school is not necessarily equivalent to being at the one in 400+ level for Americans as a whole, especially since the racial distribution of this school is not typical.
Since half the school is white, we can guess he was at the one on 200+ level among the white students, however because of systemic racism, upper class whites send their kids to white schools, leaving the children of the lower class to attend largely black schools.
On page 63 of Charles Murray’s Coming Apart he notes that whites with only a high school diploma average IQ 99 (U.S. norms) and those with even less average IQ 87. Splitting the difference, IQ 93 was perhaps the mean of white parents of students at this school.
But given the 0.5 IQ correlation between parents and their children, we’d expect the children of these white parents to progress 50% to the national white mean (IQ 103), thus the white students likely averaged IQ 98.
Assuming a standard deviation of about 15 we’d expect the one in 200+ level (+2.5 SD) to be IQ 136+.
So our historiometric estimate of the reader’s IQ (136+) is somewhat higher than the bio-demographic one (127).
Estimate Clark Ashton smith’s IQ! My estimate: 220!
As there have been less than 120 billion human beings on the earth, if one refers to regular deviation IQ – that is a raw score forced into a normal curve and with a standard deviation of 15, nobody had or will have an IQ above 202 (1 in 190 billion) since the beginning of humanity to the next century.
In general, everything above 165 (1 in 100k) is fake and the only test at that level, I believe, is the math Olympiad internatiinal competition, for people getting a perfect 42 score wich are between 1 and 3 per year.
Other tests, like old SAT, are too trainable and not sufficiently g loaded, to measure anything above 145/150 (1 in 500 to 1 in 2500) and unsupervised tests measure more motivation or cheating drive. That’s probably why there’s a significant correlation between high reported SAT scorers and high Mega scores beyond that level.
I was a bit joking about 220, but let’s say his ability is maximal for a literary figure, which is based on my completely subjective and thoroughly psychometric opinion. Please explain what you mean about mega and SAT correlation. What do you believe to be the best measure of IQ?
Ps, are you the same Bruno who comments on Unz review? I like your comments there too.
Ps, are you the same Bruno who comments on Unz review? I like your comments there too.
Fraz same Bruno. Thanks. Even if I haven’t been commenting during a long time except for Kevin McDonald article about Carlson. He first tagged my comments as spam – I was intrigued – and then published all of them at once, creating some redundancy 😊
I am very bad at keeping track of people. I am never sure of who is whom. I doesn’t happen to me with voices were it’s the opposite, I can always recognize a voice just heard once. Probably my lack of imagery hinders my ability to build a character and then link the comments to this mental construction.
Please explain what you mean about mega and SAT correlation
Ron Hoeflin studied raw score for mega test correlation with scaled score in SAT for 220 Persons who had a score for both (3 to 44 out of 48, and 920 to 1590 out of 1600). He found a 0.5 wich is quite good because both selected at a 1 in 1M level in whatever they select. For Hoeflin, it was a way to both argue that SAT could be used at a very high level it wasn’t intended to select and that an unsupervised test could be reliable to select for a good part intelligence (and not mostly something else like persistance or creativity or cheating) . His analysis violated many principle of psychometrics but it was based on a sound idea. My stance is that they have in common « g » but also something else than « g » (whatever makes you want to have a high score) and that’s why neither of them select ar the alleged level … (in my current opinion)
https://web.archive.org/web/20060514024047/http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/megadata/sat.html
What do you believe to be the best measure of IQ?
It depends on the range. If you want to measure people in the 75/125 range or 90% of your population, a 20 words vocabulary test like the one Inductivist blogger refers to (wordsum used in the general social survey) + a block design + card games test. You could have a very good estimation in half an hour with those three.
For the 125-150, if you take Wechsler and a scholastic test (ACT or Miller analogies test MAT),you get another idea quickly.
Above, besides induction of IQ from life achievements, with the caveat I am not a big believer because I prefer a narrow tautological definition of IQ – abstract problem solving – than the broad ability to understand and benefit from once environement (Pumpkin perspective) définition, i don’t think they are test available.
I would think that tests with many not so difficult question where you have to be fast could do the job of there were an army of people preparing varied questions so that it’s not trainable like scholastic tests. As it isn’t the case, they aren’t tests that can evaluate at that level.
What you get is the (horresco referring to this guy) Nassim Taleb method of just evaluating the guy performance in his own field rather than using an indirect tool. The obvious problem is that there is a mountain of crystallized intelligence in it with doesn’t correlate with g at very high level. Ultra motivated people are often very intelligent but not necessarily ultra intelligent.
That’s why there is only one IQ test at a 165 level because it doesn’t take too much knowledge (just a science high school level) and is not trainable and requires general ability, is the Math Olympiad competition. It wouldn’t be the case with Putnam competition wich is too knowledge intensive. Pumpkin told me that a math test select how good you are at math (Taleb proposal) but not « g » wich is general . But when you get very easy in terms of knowledge problems that are extraordinarily hard to solve, you get « g ».
Only flaw would be if math were a specific area of intelligence. But in that case it would ruined the general theory of intelligence itself. Besides many great mathematician have been either spatial types (like Mandelbrot) or Verbal (like Gödel, Hilbert or Cantor) or a mental character form (like Von Neumann or Mizarkhani) wich shows it covers all big areas of « g » (it could be horizontal and separate). Some intelligent people not good at math develop this kind of « math as a special skill » thing like Robert Lindsay. Maybe it could have some children environnemental skill constraint like « perfect pitch » that can’t be reached if you didn’t trained to know the sounds name before 10yo …
Correcting for range restriction the Mega-SAT correlation was 0.8:
http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/megadata/fullcorr.html
Thx Pumpkin. Even better .
Bruno, I remember you’ve said this before, about IMO’s being a high range IQ test, but I’m not yet convinced. I recall there is someone (I can’t find who he was for the life of me) who was the only perfect scorer at one IMO and his IQ is only 162 or something close to that. A very high score, of course, but if the relation between IMO rank/score and IQ was strong, shouldn’t it be higher? Also, training plays a big part in IMO success.
Vegan if what you remember is correct, you confirm my point. I think a perfect score at IMO would be equivalent to a 165 IQ. If the guy had a 162 score, that’s perfect.
Notice that IMO is only 500 candidates half of them from countries that never get anyone well ranked. Perfect scores are in the order of 2 or 3. So we are speaking of a 1 in 100 selection (on highly selected people but by vernacular processes) . If that’s give you people with an average 160 IQ, i don’t see an equivalent anywhere else,
The second aspect is the predictive value : a PhD in math has 1 chances out of 12 000 to get the field medal.
A gold medal IMO (a young 18yo person) has 1 in 150 chances of getting this. So 80 times more than someone with a PhD in math.
But for perfect scorers, it is around 1 in 12 ! Meaning you have a test with is g loaded enough to find among high school people some who will have one thousand times more chances of having a Nobel prize level than someone who already has a PhD.
I don’t know any other test with this kind of predictive power.
Nota bene : the job of solving « small math problems » in 3,5 hours and inventing or developing who new math field can’t be more wide apart. So that the all « g » concept to think that the agility in wich one solve quickly some problems will be predictive on the capacity to think extremelly deep to big world and research problem.
That’s the real proof in the pudding. The un-commensurabilty between the knowledge background for IMO (very small) and what people will be able to contribute. That’s « g » magic.
The Iranian women who were the only field medal woman was a perfect scorer at IMO btw
Bruno, do you still have the same email from which you sent me that drawing? I was hoping to email you sometime in the next 24 hours.
@bruno: A good informal selector for IQ is if a person reads both Unz review and Pumpkin!
I have a high opinion of Clark Ashton smith because he writes with such a profound vocabulary, such a fund of imagery, and such imaginative originality that there are none, or very few like him. One has to like the fantasy/swords and sorcery genre, however.
All tests are trainable.
What makes me still unconvinced is that he was the only perfect scorer that year, and there are many hugely talented mathematical minds all over the world that don’t manage to get in the team that will represent their country at the IMO. So, if that guy performed better than all the participants and would-be participants, he should have (I think) a significantly higher IQ than 160-165 sd 15.
Also, I didn’t get the Fields idea of yours. Is there a known relation between getting a Fields Medal and IQ? I’m sure there is some, but is it strong enough for it to be relevant? Maybe I didn’t get what you said, though.
Terrence Tao is probably the only one who “connects” an extremely high IQ with winning Gold Medal at an IMO and with getting a Fields Medal.
Semi-related, I’d really like to know Edward Witten’s IQ.
Vegan,
1) If he had a 162 score in one IS test and a perfect IMO, it doesn’t disqualify IMO ability to select up to 165.
2) as China, Usa, Russia and many countries throw a very wide net to reach young people with the highest ability, I am pretty sure that the top 100 candidates are drown at a 1 in 10k level in math ability. If on that, you can select at 1 in 100 level (1 perfect scorers out of 2 is from the usual suspect countries), they have got the material to select at 1 in 1 million level. Compare that with Sat, if you have 500 perfect scores, and imagining they select on the 4 million, they can’t go higher than 1 in 8000 level. But it was a time were Sat like IMO could select at that level. But neither did.
I believe SAT never selected more on g than the 1 in 1000 level (148) versus IMO that goes up to 165 (1 in 100K).
3) when you go from 1 in 12k chances for a PHD to 1 in 12 chances for a perfect IMO that would eventually get a phd, you’ve got a 65% correlation wich is more or less the correlation among intelligence and education. Meaning IMO would be equivalent to finding the 12 brightest one among all PhD students every year, and one of them would get the field medal. In fact, the test covers one sixth of that. If countries were more efficient in selecting for IMO, there would 12 perfect scorers each year and every year the field medal would be one of them (versus 1/6).
If you select the top 1/1000 of math PhD with an average IQ of 130, you could potentially find people with a 178IQ , but among scholars, the tale is one third less spread given to University selection processes, so the 12 brightest would be more like it’s more like above 162 (2/3 of 48 + 130). And as for field medal, with a correlation of 2/3, you would got (4/9 of 57 + 130) 156 wich is probably the average field medal IQ.
Pumpkin, I have sent you an email from another one. I remember my retarded drawings …
Thanks. I’ll be in touch.
Fraz you read both and more 😊
The math olympiad is trainable alright. I used to sit beside a representative of my countries team in math class in school and I saw him train for it. Math isn’t a total fluid intelligence test
Philo my point is not that it is culture free (or fair).
It is that if you belong to the 10% people interested in science in high school who have the chance to be financed by their parents, then at the level where IMO (not national but the international) occurs, the amount of preparation won’t matter.
In fact France is one of the rare country to be at the top of Field Medals and quite average in IMO because there is no formal process to look for the best and brightest for this completion. So average pupils get the best preparation but still with average results.
In contrast China, since 25 years is doing the best but with poor results for Medal Fields. It’s because they really find the brightest.
Bruno, thanks for the response. I forgot to ask you, what is “mental character form?”
Bruno, IQ is positively distributed isn’t it? do you have other idea which brings it back to the perfect bell curve?
Also, since the minimum IQ to score the highest score at the international math olympiad is 165, what would be the minimum IQ for the highest score at the international physics olympiad in comparison?
Oh yes I read online a book from a Las Vegas professor who is a applied math teacher and a psychologue. One of his area is investigating mental ontology.
He discovered that some people think abstractly with word (neither inner voice, nor imagined sound) and without images (imagined image).
Then I’ve heard many mathematicians say that they build very complex math entity as you build the persona of a person you know or when you read a book. When the person shows up, you have all his background in your head at once because of « familiarity ». It’s the same with objects or places that you have lived around.
So mental character form is that abstract thinking but crystallized into a familiar object. I thought those three words could catch that form of constructing knowledge .
But all that is still subjective and maybe the science will explain it better in the future and we will be able to see what someone is thinking and turns this subjectivity into something objective one day …
So in brief, it’s the 3 forms of solving problems I have talked about with professional mathematicians.
Bruno, IQ is positively distributed isn’t it? do you have other idea which brings it back to the perfect bell curve?
It’s a pure convention. It is forced into a bell Curve. 5 IQ points may cover a different number of raw score differences. It may have a completely different positive value along the curve. It’s not a physical measurement yet.
Also, since the minimum IQ to score the highest score at the international math olympiad is 165,
It’s just an educated guess. My point is that if it’s 148 for current SAT, I ll go up to 165 for IMO and it would be the highest existing mental test I know about.
It’s not really a minimum either. Just say if we could compound IQ from several existing IQ tests, and score the perfect IMO, my guess is the median would be around 165, and it’s the only test that could achieve that .
what would be the minimum IQ for the highest score at the international physics olympiad in comparison?
I don’t know because I have never looked at the problems and sadly my level in both math and physics has gone down so much that it would be some work to figure out. But it’s not a difference among math and physics. It’s just that IMO test are drafted like esoteric puzzles. Many intelligent math don’t like same because it’s not beautiful math. Just whizz kid mad. Maybe one could do the same with Philosphy or Law (but i doubt it )
Very interesting – thanks!
Yeah I have no clue how the phys olympiad is structured either. I simply picked it because I know it is a thing and wondered if you knew more about it.
You’re assuming a perfect correlation between vocabulary and IQ here, assuming a 0.7 correlation reduces the estimate to 124. Also, the fact that he was only precocious in that regard and perhaps only in kindergarten means even that is presumably an overestimate.
You’re assuming a perfect correlation between vocabulary and IQ here, assuming a 0.7 correlation reduces the estimate to 124.
I prefer to only use regression when predicting IQ from non-cognitive variables. Helps preserve the line between the predicting & the predicted. After all, even full-scale IQ (on one test) does not correlate perfectly with full-scale IQ on another. Also, regressing him to the U.S. average could be overcorrection because we know he belongs to above average demographics.
Historiometric estimates are like samples. The more data points you aggregate, the more reliable they become.
Still seems questionable to me. If someone scored 2 sd above the mean on some crappy cognitive test with a really low correlation to g and/or FSIQ, would you proclaim their IQ to be 130?
Regressing him to a different mean seems fine, but with no regression at all it would seem more accurate to call it a “vocabulary quotient” or something, no?
“After all, even full-scale IQ (on one test) does not correlate perfectly with full-scale IQ on another.”
For high quality test batteries it’s pretty close though, right?
Like if this guy scored 2.5 SD above the mean on WISC vocabulary and then scored as expected based on that score on the rest of the subtests, he wouldn’t score close to 136 on FSIQ on that test or a similar test battery, right?
Regressing him to a different mean seems fine, but with no regression at all it would seem more accurate to call it a “vocabulary quotient” or something, no?
You could do that, but when you consider that the vocabulary subtest on the WISC-R had a higher correlation with WISC-R full-scale IQ than WISC-R full-scale IQ had with Stanford Binet IQ (0.8 vs 0.73) we see that from a statistical perspective, vocabulary is essentially an IQ test. It correlates as well with the 2 most respected IQ tests as the 2 most respected IQ tests correlate with eachother.
And doesn’t a .7 correlation essentially make it an IQ test?
More or less
Melo: Well, if you take that correlation into account when estimating the IQ then it would be a much more accurate IQ test. If you don’t take that into account it seems like you’re intentionally making bad IQ estimates, and thus not really trying to measure/estimate IQ.
“the vocabulary subtest on the WISC-R had a higher correlation with WISC-R full-scale IQ than WISC-R full-scale IQ had with Stanford Binet IQ (0.8 vs 0.73)”
How is that possible? Did they do the Stanford Binet at a much higher age?
How is that possible? Did they do the Stanford Binet at a much higher age?
No they took both tests at the same ages. Vocabulary’s correlation with full-scale IQ was perhaps spurously high because Vocabulary is one of the 10 subtests from which full-scale IQ is calculated; correcting for this reduces its correlation to 0.74. It could also be partly because the Vocabulary subtest was taken the same day as the rest of the WISC-R while the Binet was taken on a later date (though within a few months).
But the main reason Vocabulary correlates so highly with full-scale IQ is because it’s highly g loaded.
The most surprising thing to me is the low correlation between WISC and Binet, don’t they basically test the same stuff? And summing a bunch of subtests that are all correlated with g should lead to both tests converging on g, no?
The summary of research in this old paper from 1955, seems to indicate higher correlations, have the tests gotten worse?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20153991?seq=1
Looks like for 6-7 year olds on the WISC-V the intercorrelation between vocabulary and FSIQ is 0.62. 0.46 corrected for the issue you mention. Not sure why so much lower than WISC-R.
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298217445_WISC-V_Coding_and_Symbol_Search_in_Digital_Format_Reliability_Validity_Special_Group_Studies_and_Interpretation_Q-interactive_Technical_Report_12
“full-scale scores on the SB and WISC are the most highly correlated (range r = 0.73–0.92; M = 0.81, standard deviation (SD) = 0.07)”
– https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268336215_A_comparison_of_WISC-IV_and_SB-5_intelligence_scores_in_adolescents_with_autism_spectrum_disorder
Seems like that 0.73 number is a bit of an outlier.
Newer versions of both tests are much more similar in content.
That other paper I linked from 1955 mentioned correlations from different studies:
0.85 for first and second graders
0.80 for fourth graders
0.88 for eight and nine-year olds
0.71-0.88 in four studies
0.75-0.95 for 5 year olds to 15 year olds
https://sci-hub.st/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20153991?seq=1
Don’t you think 0.73 is surprisingly low and likely to be an outlier?
Mr PP, if i wanted to gauge my own IQ for free, what would be the best way to go about it? Outside of the random online tests with dodgy norms i’ve done, i haven’t much to go by.
This is a post related to the topic. Happy?
Well you mention that a group of kids whose parents are lower class should have X IQ and then you say there is this magical reversion to the mean happening.
So you really would put money on most of these lower class kids having (a) higher IQs than their parents and (b) at a level close to the national mean. This is basically what I’m asking? Because on the common sense of it, it sounds stupid.
Yeah HBDers love reversion to the mean when it’s used to say “there is no hope for blacks”.
I hate regression toward the mean when it comes to this. It’s revolting that their kids’ IQs plummet toward their group average. They have to miscegenate to combat this gruesome fact of reality.
I respect LaVar Ball so much for his ambition and selectively mating with an amazon to produce hooper offspring, but no one told him his mate ideally would be black if he’s trying to maximize his spawn’s athletic potential. Only two of his sons made it to the NBA because one inherited those European bunnies.
If all you know about someone is their ethnic group and their parents IQ, then your best guest for their IQ is somewhere between the ethnic average (since most people cluster around the average) and their parents’ IQ (since most people resemble their parents). Regression is just common sense in mathematical form.
Youre wrong. Common sense would suggest lower class children have the same or lower IQs and definitely not the mean for the population.
Lower class kids are smarter than their parents for the same reason as upper class kids are dumber than their parents. It’s the parents IQ that affects the class level.
So you would be comfortable going to a high school in the ghetto and assuming 99/100 kids are smarter than their parents just based on mean regression?
“Common sense would suggest lower class children have the same or lower IQs ”
If family environment was much more important for adult IQ, perhaps one would expect such a death spiral?
Lower IQ parents would provide worse environments for their children, leading them to have even lower IQ children, and those children would therefore provide even worse environments for their children and so on for generations until they couldn’t care for children at all at some point.
Family environment doesn’t have a significant impact on adult IQ though.
Philo, it’s all about averages. The point is if you have a black couple both with 120IQ who have a child, and a white couple with 120IQ who have a child, the child of the white parents is expected to have a higher IQ than the child of the black parents. Despite the fact that all the parents have 120IQ. Make sense?
This is why black children born of high-SES black parents score as well as those born of low-SES white parents. Even though high-SES black parents are probably higher IQ than the low IQ white parents, regression to the mean ensures that on average white children will do better than expected compared to black children, taking into account their parents’ SES.
There are lots of exceptions though. Commenter Billy has a very high IQ and his parents are probably not as smart. Not everyone regresses to the mean; it’s just that on average, they do.
The parents of high IQ kids regress to the mean just as the children of high IQ parents regress to the mean.
The problem with Melo, like all wiggers or in his case chiggers, is that they’re aping (no pun intended) behaviour of people with lower IQs than them. This may well be the 1 instance in all of nature where an organism pretends to be dumber than he is in order to get social acceptance from [redacted by pp, 2021-04-12] .
Lmao Philo thinks having friends and getting laid is dumb.
I had a Cuban friend who used to call me his “chigga” all the time
RIP Cueto you’ll always be my spic.
Having black friends and getting laid with black girls is disgusting.
Most of the woman I’ve been with are white. For whatever reason they love me.
What’s wrong with black women though? They’re all pink on the inside.
Black women don’t like me. Best chance I got was with a Jewish chick. Nothing happened, but it was the best chance.
I’m joking about black friends and black women. I have had many african friends and am not totally against black women.
It’s not brainpower but complexity that matters.
Power is just energy, it boosts stamina and keeps the system energy rich. But compexity is the basis under which fluid intelligence operates. It takes all the parts and puts them together. Not just working memory but in all ways, the brain combines things.
Have you seen the movie Charly, PP? It’s about a retarded fellow who undergoes experimental surgery to increase his intelligence. There are some truly haunting scenes that you’d probably enjoy. I think you can watch it for free on YouTube.
The movie is called Flowers for Aldernon and the short story is way better than the movie.
Algernon not Aldernon. Do we need to add upside down dyslexia to your list of disabilities? And it’s a novel not a short story. I loved the movie including the remake.
Its apparently a short story and a novel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon
Has anyone explored the topic of regressions to different means, and by that I am not talking about different racial groups, but groups within any given racial group. Elites tend to be more closely related to one another than the non-elites are in extended networks.
So youre going to keep moderating anytime I repeat what you said about [redacted by pp, april 12, 2021].
Yes I know what I imply, & if you had any subtlety, you’d know why I imply instead of say it.
Maybe I should write a short story about an aspergers person who gets cured and becomes ‘super normal’ like flowers of algernon.
So the first half will be your life story?
Youre really not going to post my comments PP?
No thank you. Not until the quality improves.
They were my opinions on religion and race that are relevant to the ideas previously posted under this blog.
Im sure your commenters want to know what religion I belong to and the dichotomous relationship of people in the Indian subcontinent.
I’m sure they would too, but you need to learn to express controversial opinions in a less mean-spirited way.
People naturally talk in cliches and stereotyped language. The hardest thing to do is break away from that but it is also the most effective form of communication. When I write I try to make it as simple yet powerful as possible. Unfortunately I speak very differently and am not an effective communicator in conversation. However I am very good at persuasive and argumentative speaking styles.
Language evidently expresses the idea that more of something is not always better including intelligence. A simple yet direct statement serves its purpose better than a complex one. It certainly does rely on the context and logical coherencies.
I hope this fits the spirit of your blog in a positively directed way and influences the audience towards becoming better communicators!
A simple yet direct statement serves its purpose better than a complex one
But if you’re too direct you can sound simplistic & hateful which scares quality commenters away.
Lol, quality commentators = need safe space to not get scared
You should blog on Reddit
And Pumpkin knows a thing or two about attracting quality commenters 🙂
Have you guys done a role-playing thread with Pumpkin as the nurse in an insane asylum yet? 🙂
Yes being blunt is always an issue. However hatefulness can be substituted with skepticism and other forms of healthy disagreeableness.
Loaded puppy is worried you talk to much nonsense. Has it ever occurred to you that your comments are terrible? I genuinely think theyre the worst comments here.
What do you mean? Theyre literally the only comments that make sense lmao!
You guys need to get out of the basement to get a reality check.
So ridiculous that the simpsons voice actor for apu has been cancelled. Who the fuck is sensitive enough to see that as a joke about indians? If we look at how Bollywood portrayed foreignors you’d find similar types of comedy. This is what we’ve been reduced to – an idpol reformation. Also the simpsons have sucked since I was a teenager. I can’t believe its still going.
Time magazine named Bart Simpson one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century.
The Simpsons was excellent up until about the year 2000. I watched a video explaining why it sucks now. Basically they lost all the good writers.
Mike Henry had to renounce his role as Cleveland Brown because he’s not black. The original writers of The Simpsons might be good people to profile/gauge the IQs of. Several of them were legit math geniuses who happened to be world-class comedy writers as well.
Who cares what you guys think. Honestly nearly all of you are severely autistic and have major emotional issues.
And dont tell me you wont post this PP when you let Pill post a nasty comment like that. Its the honest truth.
Loaded is correct that half the commenters here are autistic but wrong about himself being a great commenter.
PP, Can you sometime do an article about IQs above 200 IQ? Whether it is really possible? Do people who are reported to have such a score like terrance tao etc really have that high score. Also what does having an IQ above 200 mean?
Tao’s 230 score was a ration score. Perhaps von Neumann had am IQ of over 200 sd 15.