A commenter on Quoara wrote:
Well they were collecting standardization data on it from 2016 through 2020, and expected to finish in 2020, but I don’t know if they did due to Covid, etc.
So if it was normed circa 2018 and looks like it wont be released until 2022 at the earliest by which time the norms will be four years old and from the pre-covid era. Flynn claimed WAIS norms became inflated by 0.3 points per year, but if anything people probably would score lower now than in 2018 because of closed schools and offices and long covid causing brain fog.
Are psychologists going to spend $1400 USD buying a test with potentially obsolete norms and risk getting covid by administering to the people who come to their office? The Psychological Corporation must be shaking in their boots that all the money they invested norming the test will not be made back, but by panicking they are making the problem worse, because every year they don’t release the test is another year more obsolete the norms get.
Maybe they are trying to create a zoom friendly version of the WAIS-V and collecting fresh norms for this new version. All the money they spent norming the pre-covid version could than be a tax write off.
Bad it’s sad to think of the WAIS-V being administered by zoom without the hands-on charm and physical puzzles of the traditional WAIS.
Pumpkin Person 
I started reading PP’s blog after I had to take the WAIS-IV for Uni a few years ago.
Really hated school and was only going to uni to appease my family. I hated being punished for the wrong answer or not finishing my homework. IT SUCKED!
The WAIS was so unique, it was just me and the examiner in a small room with a high ceiling, blank walls and a table. It was SO quiet in there, the only sound I heard was the ventilation turning on and off.
There was NO stress or judgement if I didn’t know the answer, he’d put a mark on a paper either way. One day he spent 4 hours just asking me zero stress questions and me answering. Sometimes we’d take a break and talk, or sit there in silence because I got a headache. It felt so intimate. WAIS-ZOOM will suck.
geroldo
jesse rafael
oprah
springer
donahue…
in order of less evil and less retarded…
#1 donahue
does peepee deny this?
donahue might be the least evil but he’s not the smartest
Wonder what donahue does these days.
and TSLA still has 10b in debt.
pill autistic theory: musk can sell TSLA stock and dilute shareholders with the promise that he will do something with it without saying exactly what that something is. AUTISM!
and TSLA still has 10b in debt.
pill’s autistic theory: musk can sell TSLA stock and dilute shareholders with the promise that he will do something with the proceeds without saying exactly what that something is. AUTISM! because he doesn’t need and won’t need more than a few b to expand TSLA’s production. but by that time TM and VW will have taken TSLA “out back” and shot it.
“musk can sell TSLA stock and dilute shareholders with the promise that he will do something with the proceeds without saying exactly what that something is.”
Correct. Now go back to sleep.
in the near future teslas will become collector’s items like dusenbergs or deloreans.
if musk said: i’m going to sell 250b worth of additional TSLA stock to build a base on the moon…stock immediately craters.
more interesting question is: why put spreads on TSLA and not on cos like PTON, GME, LULU, etc.
answer: because everyone knows those cos are bs so they have much more expensive puts.
Hello Pumpkin, long time lurker. Do you have anything on MCAT or medical school and IQ? Many people say that medical school is mostly memorization but not sure if that is correct. Personally, I lean towards considering engineers smarter than doctors.
There was a study of medical students in the 1960s. Mean WAIS IQ in the mid 120s.
Thank you. I want to ask you for a custom IQ estimate given certain parameters. Also I have a little quiz I give prospective hires that I would appreciate you taking a look at.
I can send you some BTC. Can you email me please??
how many cos can you name which have been in the 10 most valuable cos list who have “reinvented dey bidness” and remained in the top 10?
answer: none. it doesn’t happen.
AND AMZN’s cloud bidness will have margins shrink to zero soon enough…it’s not a big value added bidness. MSFT is dey biggest competitors n sheeeit.
where be AMZN’s profits?
AMZN intentionally has no profits in everything other than AWS, AND AWS profits will soon plateau.
the way cos can raise additional capital in a less diluting way is called a…
non-transferable rights offering.
this IS diluting, but it’s only diluting to the extent that current shareholders collectivley want it to be.
so what can happen is a co offers such rights and it’s WAY under-subscribed.
such an occurrence is SO embarrassing that in general such offerings are SMALL.
You’ve just spent the last 10 minutes being wrong about everything. I’m not justifying the Tesla stock price, I’m explaining what other people think which is not the same as what I think.
Designing an IQ test is easy. Hell, it’s hard to make a bad IQ test just because g is so omnipresent. I could do it. The problem is getting a large, stratified sample to take it and do their best.
Designing a crappy IQ test is easy. Designing a great one is hard. g is not that omnipresent and there’s more to IQ than g.
What’s so hard about it? The WAIS only has a few indices and two tests per index is enough.
Because I could create a test with a completely different indices and it would correlate quite imperfectly with the WAIS.
How so?
How not so?
there’s more to IQ than g
False. If it’s more than that, it undermines IQ’s claim as a monolithic, all-encompassing representation of a person’s global thinking ability. An IQ test’s quality = its approximation of “general intelligence.”
If you want to say there’s more to intelligence than g, I wouldn’t disagree.
If it’s monolithic why would the Wechsler have needed 10+ subtests? People with fetal alcohol syndrome score low on IQ tests for biological reasons and their low scores have real world consequences, and yet FAS appears uncorrelated with g.
IQ is meant to approximate all-around intelligence, or g. Isn’t that the whole point of reducing intelligence to one number? Why would FSIQ even be a thing if all the subtests and indices are non-overlapping or that they don’t converge on general adaptability? You’re undermining your life’s work, PP!
What reveals that people with FAS do poorly on IQ tests for reasons unrelated to g? Could those biological factors not be the basis of g to begin with?
You can define IQ as a measure of general intelligence (the hypothesized variable common to all cognitive abilities) or you can define it as intelligence in general (overall cognition). The advantage of using the latter definition is that we’re not dependent on g being scientifically confirmed & it allows us to extend the concept of IQ to non-humans where g as we know it may not exist.
Since I define intelligence as your ability to adapt, I already have an umbrella under which to unify it into one number. I don’t need g but I’m more than happy to have it.
One advantage of thinking of IQ as intelligence in general, instead of as general intelligence, is that you can think of it as an average which allows us to get a much more realistic understanding of how reliable are tests are than the current standard error estimates.
As for FAE, there’s apparently no correlation between how impaired these people are on a test and how g loaded said test is.
IQ is what is used to calculate it: performance on various cognitive tasks(g). The more a cognitive task correlates with other cognitive tasks, the more it is reflective of IQ (g). There’s some external validity to it, but IQ is so far away from explaining “intelligence in general” it’s not even funny. Get real.
IQ necessarily is how well you generally do on well-defined tasks that require thought. If there’s an incidental case where a non-native speaker with high intelligence does poorly on a g-loaded task like defining words, that doesn’t invalidate the concept. You can have no hands and do poorly on block design. You can even have low g yet still have effective real-world “smarts.” You always conflate IQ and real intelligence, and now you’re implying what makes an IQ test an IQ test (how well it correlates with other IQ tests) isn’t all there is to intelligence.. Wtf
IQ is what is used to calculate it: performance on various cognitive tasks(g). The more a cognitive task correlates with other cognitive tasks, the more it is reflective of IQ (g). There’s some external validity to it,
SOME external validity? The whole point of g is the external validity. If all we cared about was the subtests on the particular IQ test we could simply coach these and cure retardation & indeed huge sums of government money has been wasted doing exactly that. The reason low IQ is such a major disability is that predicts performance on real world tasks that have no superficial resemblance to the tasks on the tests.
but IQ is so far away from explaining “intelligence in general” it’s not even funny. Get real.
We don’t know how far we are unless we define what close looks like. I attempted to do exactly that here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2020/07/27/why-the-high-reliability-of-iq-tests-is-misleading/
You always conflate IQ and real intelligence, and now you’re implying what makes an IQ test an IQ test (how well it correlates with other IQ tests) isn’t all there is to intelligence.. Wtf
I am simply proposing an alternative definition of “what makes an IQ test an IQ test”. Your definition of what makes an IQ test an IQ test is how well it correlates with g. My definition is how well it samples all cognitive functions. The two criteria are highly correlated in the general population but mine is better for unusual populations.
The original WAIS was created with very little thought of g. Wechsler just chose a bunch of diverse tests that he felt were most representative of the infinite ways in which adult intelligence manifested in America (general knowledge, social comprehension, arithmetic, spatial analysis, clerical speed, rote memory etc). Although his test turned out to be a good measure of general intelligence, it was designed as a test of intelligence in general, & tests of intelligence in general are essentially statistical samples, and should be evaluated as such which means the more scatter there is around the typical level of performance, the less reliable it is as a sample of intelligence in general.
If only there were more than a mild correlation between IQ and real-world success.
Face it: “IQ” and g effectively are the same thing; intelligence and g aren’t. If you want to give weight to factors beyond g, it’s completely arbitrary and extraneous to the concept of IQ per se. If you have high g, you have a high IQ – and vice versa. That doesn’t mean that abnormal populations like idiot savants don’t have some form of intelligence. It’s just not captured within the frame of IQ or its tests.
If only there were more than a mild correlation between IQ and real-world success.
The correlation between IQ and permanent income is about 0.5 in U.S. men
Face it: “IQ” and g effectively are the same thing; intelligence and g aren’t.
Among biologically normal people, g would correlate very highly with overall cognition (intelligence) because the areas where one is weak & strong would cancel out, leaving g as the only source of cognitive variance. But in the clinical population, you might have cases of global brain damage where g is relatively preserved. Such individuals would be normal in g but low in intelligence and also low in Wechsler IQ because the Wechsler includes no many non-g sources of variance which would not cancel out in cases where non-g variation is systematically low, rather than random like it is the general population.
That doesn’t mean that abnormal populations like idiot savants don’t have some form of intelligence. It’s just not captured within the frame of IQ or its tests.
But if IQ tests predict real world failure as well for the idiot savant as they do for the conventionally low IQ person, why insist low intelligence is only be measured in the latter?. As Jensen has noted, few if any idiot savants are able to make a living off their special talents.
“People with fetal alcohol syndrome score low on IQ tests for biological reasons and their low scores have real world consequences, and yet FAS appears uncorrelated with g.”
What??
Anyway, I’m asking: how would you design a highly g-loaded test with completely indices that wouldn’t measure the same thing as the WAIS? Or at least get scores correlated below, say, 0.7 with the WAIS? Isn’t that against the nature of g?
FAE: https://james-flynn.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/flynn2014-The-g-beyond-Spearmans-g-Flynns-paradoxes-resolved-using-four-exploratory-meta-analyses.pdf
Not saying you’d get correlation below 0.7, but that’s a very low bar. With a 0.7 correlation, people who score 160 IQ on one test will average 142 on the other. That’s a 1.2 SD gap.
In what other field would such measurement error be tolerated? Imagine someone who was 6’10” at one doctor’s office being 6’6″ at another? That may happen once in a blue moon but with IQ, the equivalent happens 50% of the time at the extremes.
Okay. What’s the lowest correlation you could expect to get with the WAIS-IV while still having a highly g-loaded test?
One could make a test just as g loaded as the WAIS that would only correlate 0.8 with the WAIS. That’s not good enough.
For height the correlation by 2 different stadiometers is like 0.9983
What’s this saying, that if I score 150 on the WAIS then my true g-level could easily below as low as 140??
g does not require the processing speed nor working memory indices. these are part of executive processing. I suck on ExecProces. My g is 127 but I underperform so because even though I can recognize patterns which is what (g) is, I cannot manipulate them to execute. 112 is accurate for my IQ even if pumpkin calculated me at 121.
if pumpkin says 70 subtests are neasisary then I believe we could get a full picture of IQ symmetry.
Jordan Peterson says the frontal lobes program the brain. You can program with good or bad code. This is specialization. The surface area of patterns I can learn is 127. but I can only do so much. I can only program 3 patterns at a time just about.
I program myself (autism)
Paul, since not all (or any one) suggests of an IQ test are 100% g loaded, isn’t it clear that the tests measure other things too? I have a poorgraspof all that math, but maybe I’m right?
Also, I find it weird that we talk about g when there two g’s – gF and gC – and some tests/tasks might be very or little g loaded in ways that might mean anything in terms of the gF/gC ratio.
*subtests, not suggests
Of course IQ measures things beyond g. Those factors are just irrelevant as far as modern IQ testing is concerned – or at least to its assigning a single number to a person. Composite IQ is meant to be an approximation of the construct g. That doesn’t mean that non-g factors are necessarily less important in the real world or to effective “intelligence.”
Why would non-g factors be important in life, but not important on IQ tests, particularly well-rounded IQ tests like the original WAIS which was intended as a microcosm for life? I realize there are many real life situations that can’t be perfectly simulated by IQ tests, but why would these have a monopoly on non-g factors if g by definition is common to all mental abilities?
You’re right, there’s more to IQ than g (interpreted it as your implying there’s a lot more to it, which there isn’t). An IQ test’s quality is basically how well it reflects g, so G‘s comment wasn’t totally objectionable. A crappy IQ test is one where factors beyond g are emphasized (idiosyncratic knowledge and skills). Cooijmans makes crappy tests IMO.
The Wechsler emphasizes factors other than g, it’s just that they tend to cancel out leaving g dominant.
you can download it for free.
why is 100% of it retarded?
hint: the CFA curriculum on equities doesn’t value DIVERSITY.
pill’s head:
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb164/Rutabaga64/animated%20gifs/Scanners-HeadExplode.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1381711572605
i don’t mean racial et al diversity.
i mean the diversity of business types.
the CFA curriculum on equities takes ZERO account of this.
as i’ve said before even the doyen of valuation at columbia, damodaran, makes this same mistake. he has literally no clue as to how to evaluate financial services cos.
it’s NOT a family myth…mugabe would NOT exist if all had sunk.
IQ test question: what is THE (marxist/christian/human) POINT of the “titanic disaster”?
there is one.
Cameron making a great movie was the point.
the meek inherit the earth
but why
the ship that cant be sunk is sunk
we all face death, non is immune
PP, if other constraints weren’t an issue how many subtests would you ideally have on the WAIS? 10 seems kind of weak to me — at least at the individual level — since Processing Speed is so weakly g-loaded. Maybe 20 subtests would be better?
about 70
IQ symmetry
That would be awesome.
PP, why does the WAIS only correlate ~0.8 with the Stanford Binet when some WAIS subtests correlate 0.7+ with FSIQ on their own? Shouldn’t it be much higher since the SB is a battery of subtests and should therefore approximate g?
Some WAIS subtests correlate very well with the full-scale IQ because (a) they’re very g loaded, and (b) they have similar content to other subtests in the battery.
Figure Weights correlates 0.7 with FSIQ and since it’s an optional test it doesn’t add to FSIQ, therefore not inflating it by correlating with itself.
What content does it share with other subtests? Seems pretty novel to me. And there’s only one other fluid reasoning test on the WAIS, Matrix Reasoning.
A 10 test SB composite should still trounce it. All it says to me is the true g-loading of the WAIS isn’t *that* high.
Actually Block Design, Visual puzzles, parts of Similarities are all fluid even though the WAIS doesn’t call them that. Figure Weights correlates with full-scale IQ because it’s especially g loaded.
The COP26 is going on now and nobody is talking about the elephant in the room when it comes to the environment – the population.
Best way to reduce emissions is a 1 child policy.
So in an article last week the Economist said that the US shouldn’t tax billionaires specifically and instead introduce a consumption tax and this week in an article on china, it said it should avoid introducing a consumption tax and instead tax property. Durrrr!
They said introducing a consumption tax in China would be regressive but in America they said it would be great. These people are craven worshippers of the western elites.
I wouldn’t tax net worth either, I would just tax capital gains and inheritance the same as income tax, and make sure that capital gains is paid on any inherited asset before inheritance tax is applied.
Seems to be a very strong bias in globalist organisations and media towards ever expanding human population. I mean its simply unsustainable economically and envronmentally. If the UN had balls it would be handng out free condoms to anyone that wants one.
Bill gates love black babies.
And he loves you saying that
The rightwing conspiracy theorists all think the opposite. They think elites want to REDUCE the world population
THey want to keep increasing the population so that there’ll be enough people to pay the pensions of the preceeding generation. They would rather that than tax the rich.
Many people are dead weight. Computers can do a lot of jobs. Billions of people are too dumb to do any useful work.
Figure Weights correlates 0.7 with FSIQ and since it’s an optional test it doesn’t add to FSIQ, therefore not inflating it by correlating with itself.
What content does it share with other subtests? Seems pretty novel to me. And there’s only one other fluid reasoning test on the WAIS, Matrix Reasoning.
A 10 test SB composite should still trounce it. All it says to me is the true g-loading of the WAIS isn’t *that* high.
“Now that billions of people have been injected with COVID-19 vaccines, it is becoming clear that some of the serious side-effects, like heart inflammation (m.R.N.A. vaccines) and blood clotting (adenovirus vector vaccines), may result from the vaccination protocol which does not include “aspiration”. In the past, one would verify that the needle was not accidentally located in a vein by pulling the plunger back to see if any blood came into the syringe (“aspirating”) and reinserting the needle if so.
In recent years, this practice has been abolished on grounds like “there are no large veins in this upper arm muscle”, “it causes extra pain”, and “the current syringe needles can only be inserted once and self-retract after use”. However, there are such veins, and when the vaccine is injected into them it goes straight to the heart and other organs, causing inflammation (in case of m.R.N.A. vaccines). This is potentially lethal, and even if one survives it may take months to rehabilitate and there may be permanent damage. It seems to happen mainly to young active males like athletes, possibly because they have more or bigger veins in their muscles, or because they exercise hard in the weeks following vaccination, during which there may be more or less mild heart inflammation caused by the vaccine’s nano-particles, and exercise during heart inflammation worsens it. For better understanding, one may imagine that this heart inflammation is analogous to the muscle pain that you normally get in the upper arm when the vaccine is injected correctly. In case of the vector vaccines, blood clotting rather than heart inflammation seems to occur as a rare serious side-effect, possibly related to inadvertent intravenous injection.
The vaccine manufacturers do specify that the vaccine should not go into a vein, and the instruction leaflets of the vaccines do mention these rare serious side-effects, but the people who are doing the current vaccination campaign appear ignorant of this issue, which is understandable since many of them are not medical professionals but have only taken a short course to learn to administer vaccinations.
This ignorance is also fed by the government’s and mainstream media’s conspicuous silence around serious side-effects of COVID vaccines, and the public slaughtering of anyone who is even remotely critical of vaccination. I know of a few famous sports people who got these life-threatening effects but say nothing about it, probably because they are afraid it would cost them their sponsorships, government support, or careers. I would shout it from the roof top myself if I were them.
While this may occur only once in a few thousand injections, that is still millions of people affected, also considering there are two injections per person and maybe more to come. A sign that something is wrong is a metallic taste in the mouth within seconds after the injection (with subtle notes of aborted foetus in graphene sauce larded with 5G nanochip receptors, one presumes); a taste in the mouth right afterwards is only possible with an intravenous injection, not with an intramuscular one.
While I am generally reluctant to comment on the pandemic and vaccinations, this is so important that it would be irresponsible not to draw attention to it, especially since a lot of vaccinations are still going to be given over the next year or so, and the authorities are not taking any visible steps to repair this or warn the public. On the utmost contrary, one is now even vaccinating children (who are relatively prone to this side-effect) without making certain it does not go into a vein. The first principle of medicine is “do no harm”. Meanwhile, it might be sensible to abstain from exercise in the weeks after vaccination if you notice the slightest symptom of heart inflammation (myocarditis/pericarditis) and avoid the vector vaccines altogether if possible (thrombosis is even more dangerous; 1 in 4 who got this side-effect died).”
(From Paul Cooijmans’ e-mail newsletter)
Do we have any solid evidence Coojman has a high IQ? Not saying he doesn’t, but has he scored high on any tests other than the ones he’s created.
He declines to mention any of his test scores, but he’s been a member of Mensa Netherlands, Hoeflin’s OATH (One-in-A-THousand). I believed he mentioned being a member of Triple Nine as well, but no mention that I know about of joining any of the higher cutoffs. I’m gonna say his IQ is about the same as mine, but with a more balanced profile rather than verbal-heavy.
https://www.megasociety.net/noesis/135
Click to access 132.pdf
https://megasociety.org/noesis/169
Noesis has spent quite a time presenting his material and Langdon appreciating it but with a condescending tone though.
BULLSHIT!
The mainstream media is not hushing up vaccine side effects.
“Langley-area man loses 2 metres of intestine after a blood clot following his AstraZeneca jab”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/langley-man-intestine-vaccine-effect-1.6027830
“Researchers find a higher than expected risk of myocarditis in young men after full vaccination.”
“Evidence grows stronger for Covid vaccine link to heart issue, CDC says”
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/evidence-grows-stronger-covid-vaccine-link-heart-issue-cdc-says-n1270339
And the POINT IS: In Canada 208 people died after getting vaccinated…
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/
And out of those:
79 of these deaths are unlikely linked to a COVID-19 vaccine
82 deaths could not be assessed due to insufficient information
41 deaths are still under investigation
6 deaths followed a diagnosis of TTS (refer to the TTS bullet above)
So ~208 deaths from vaccine (POSSIBLY) vs 29,095 deaths from COVID…
THE ANTI-VAXXERS ARE MENTALLY ILL!!
all people wish they had my mental status to a T in certain respects. i am a fairly intelligent person but probably the only neurotypical ever.
society has degraded itself by lambasting me and putting me in a position of helplessness.
i was its only hope but now it seems there is no hope!