I enjoyed the below video with Richard Feynman. I’ve never been a huge Feynman fan, mostly because after being interested in IQ for decades, I’ve grown tired of all the people gushing over how brilliant he is and how he couldn’t possibly have an IQ of “only 125”; he must be lying or playing a clever trick on the World, because clearly he’s the poster boy for genius.
Having said that, I do agree that his IQ is higher than 125 but not because the test wasn’t valid. Rather it is because my guess is he took the Otis IQ test and this was a bit of an anomaly in that it had a standard deviation of only 10. Thus his 125 would have translated into a 138 on the Wechsler or 143 on the old Stanford Binet (which had a mean of 102 and SD of 16.4).
But it’s interesting that he’s so open about what sounded like a sub-brilliant score. Just as the richest people can afford to dress like slobs because everyone knows they have money, brilliant people can afford to admit they under performed on an IQ test because everyone knows they’re smart. It becomes a status symbol. A hilarious example of this was Bill Cosby telling David Letterman that he scored 500 (out of 1600) on the old SAT. Did he score 500 on reading and on math? Yes, he quipped.
Cosby’s confession was all the more impressive because, sadly, people expect black people to test low, but Cosby’s great wealth and quick wit made him so conspicuously intelligent that he had nothing to fear. White America would just say “we all know Cosby is BRILLIANT; obviously he just had a bad day”
Pumpkin Person 
It is interesting to note that the more posts PP makes in short time, the more evident her very narrow range of interests, lack of real knowledge and ability to provide real insight.
PP you need an autism diagnosis so bad…
Wasting my time with a mentally retarded who thinks is a genius… and knowledgeable in human psychology.
I’m sorry for myself.
We can’t all be as brilliant as you Santo, I mean after 9 years of commenting on English blogs, you’ve almost achieved the English skills of a toddler.
At least i’m not a full retard who worship for useless piece of shit people like Oprah. If you read real literature about INTELLIGENCE, maybe you would be capable to come with something really interesting, insightful or just correct. But not. Just like an autistictard, you post the same fucking shit, repetitive, simplistic and wrong since 2017ish. And even your shitty blog’s layout is awful. I even think is not autism, it’s dementia. This your basic misunderstanding about thing you think is very knowledgeable AGAIN!! I tried. I already post here interesting links about this stuff which partially counterague or problematize your simplistic and then wrong point of view about “IQ” (human intelligence), but you are lunatic, it’s nearly impossible to reach someone who live in an alternative reality.
You are full retard, your blog is only interesting because comment section. Your posts add nothing new, relevant or… just correct. Just recycling the same hbd shit with cringy random association with your “divas”. Not mention your faking-identity, dubious claims about who you are. If it’s a game, i’m not really interested.
I give up.
Seek a diagnosis. For me, no doubt you have issues that smelling autism.
Lmao. Damn.
also, I don’t have a narrow range of interests. I post about IQ over and over because that’s what my audience wants to read about.
Stop to lie.
Your audience doesn’t care about oprah.
Bye bye
Yes I sprinkle some of my other interests like talk shows, slasher films, politics, evolution, but I almost always do so in the context of IQ related issues. In such a fragmented media age, the best strategy for building an audience is probably to be as narrow as possible. That’s why we have entire streaming services that show only horror films or only documentaries or entire cable channels built around right wing news. It’s called niche marketing.
Granted she has narrow interests ( on what she chooses to write about) but she is very intelligent and knowledgeable. And she is the smartest person I have interacted with (online or in the real world) and has one of the best debater).
I understand how perception and executive function and value function work. It is about prediction. Prediction can be done by creating a multidimensional object(network) that rotates and projects the prediction onto the detector. The object(network) changes its shape based on the accuracy of the predictions.
What happens next is whether the prediction can affect the outcome of its value function. In animals, it is called pain and pleasure – reflex and instinct. Whatever keeps the survival of the organism at the base level. The value function conditions the predictions going into the motor commands where the creature learns good and bad via emotional valence. Emotions are the self-reinforcement elements of survival.
Executive control is coordination for the value function. Learning is the process of finding procedures for acquiring resources and the tools of such cause-and-effect relations. Error signals produce a map of what can and cannot be done and relay this to a set of practical steps one can do in order for the goal to be reached. This is spatial-temporal. A path is drawn in the subconscious to a desired outcome and then it is tested in comparison to other paths to the probability of most likely success.
Of all the ways to achieve an outcome whichever has the highest probability and whichever is in accordance with the preferred (socially acceptable) result is what is chosen. In the deconstruction of events, mistakes will be made and this is why we must have a working/long-term memory to correct ourselves.
Intelligence as to Richard Frynmen is that he can see more options available. More ways of doing things than most people.
A.I. can do all possibilities but it is the ability to select what to do which is where the value – the goal needs defining.
The base preferences are other than, but simply emotions.
Interesting post. I agree that when you’re secure in your image, you can have fun pretending to risk undoing it.
I’m glad he didn’t say something like “I was sleepy and anxious that day.”
And kind of pathetic of Mensa to ask him to join them to gain from his prestige.
Pingback: Nice Q & A with Richard Feynman – Glyn Hnutu-healh: History, Alchemy, and Me
Hey pp, I remember reading somewhere that the correlation between verbal subtests is higher than the correlation between nonverbal subtests and also higher than the correlation between nonverbal subtests and verbal subtests.
Maybe this means that there is such a thing as a ‘verbal g’ and possibly more than 1 non-verbal gs. Any thoughts on this pp?
There are two (g)
right frontal-parietal junction visual-spatial
and left frontal-parietal junction verbal-algebraic.
rr – has a very robot way of understanding language.
quant is there but quality lacks. it is a formalism.
me: x y z
rr: sounds like nonsense
me: what is the argument?
rr: it does not follow from what “I” said
me: x = a y = b z = c
rr: what does that prove?
me: why is a language all about math to you?
rr: my (anal)lytic-philosophy
Occipital probably has something to do with the visual-spatial g. But even there, while I don’t remember the exact numbers I read, I recall some non-verbal subtests having closer correlations with a few other non-verbals in comparison to the rest of non-verbals. Like block design with one thing, and matrix reasoning with another. Could be more than one nonverbal g.
Blocks load much more on the spatial factor while Matrix loads much more on what I would call the conceptual factor. Matrix has some spatial loading but if you suck at spatial, you can verbalize your way through. You can’t really verbalize your way through blocks.
I wonder if the FSIQ to intellectual productivity correlation is at all moderated by Matrix. While g I contend is the mental ability to assign values to symbols and concepts, most IQ tests explicitly lay out what should be focused on and therefore miss out on some transferability to real-world problem solving, which not only requires some cognitive horsepower to assign objective values but also the ability to weigh things of subjective value. The “separate the wheat from the chaff” inductive reasoning factor of a matrix test might be the closest thing to a cognitive test that measures potential for creative achievement in the arts and sciences.
Among neurotypicals:
Matrix IQ >> FSIQ = Richard Feynman
FSIQ >> Matrix IQ = Dilettantes and people who memorize pi
RR is just low IQ. He doesn’t understand anything unless a Jew wrote it in a book.
I do not actually believe he (rr) is low iq.
I believe he has programmed his own mind like a robot to have opinions that are silly.
So he has lots and lots of data entered into him. His memory for data is high. but he is a formalist. That means what he does with that data is robotic.
Vast memory + Robot mind = poor understanding.
Yet understanding is NOT part of IQ.
Understanding reality is not required for high IQ. Quant is required. Robots have high quant.
rr could be INTP or ISTP.
N is abstract and I do not know him that well but S types are more spatial visual. Abstract formalism seems to be what rr is doing.
@pp
If I had to guess, matrix would be heavier on the parietal lobe, while block design would have more occipital use than matrices do. Though I don’t have any research on it at hand.
On the other hand, I found this posted by someone on quora:
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-44151b25418c656f9e20c4cf63c86670-pjlq
The citation he gives: P. 89 – Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Obvious non-verbal subclusters don’t jump out at me when I look at it, but I do notice higher correlations between VCI subtests than between POI ones. Picture assembly seems to have similar correlation to VCI and other POI subtests in spite of being a POI subtest itself. Meanwhile MR and BD have a stronger correlation together than to any VCI and picture completion subtest.
Se – is not true autism as in social deficits but as to the config of extreme sensory overuse. Si being underused.
Put together (INFP) is emotional abstract concrete inference
or
intense associative schizo empericist.
INFP – Animekitty
emotion: Fi – intense
abstract: Ne – associative
concrete: Si – schizo
inference: Te – empiricist
ENFP – Mugabe
abstract: Ne – associative
emotion: Fi – intense
inference: Te – empirical
concrete: Si – schizo
ESTP – Philosopher
concrete: Se – autistic
emotion: Ti – formalist
inference: Fe – deflated
abstract: Ni – psychic
INTP – Race Realist
inference: Ti – formalistic
abstract: Ne – associative
concrete: Si – schizo
emotion: Fe – deflation
INTJ – Santo
abstract: Ni – psychic
inference: Te – empirical
emotion: Fi – intense
concrete: Se – autism
ENTJ – Bruno and pumpkin
inference: Te – empirical
abstract: Ni – psychic
concrete: Se – autistic
emotion: Fi – intensity
ESFP – Marsha
concrete: Se – autism
emotion: Fi – intense
abstract: Ni – psychic
inference: Te – empiricist
Mistake order*
ESFP – Marsha
concrete: Se – autism
emotion: Fi – intense
inference: Te – empiricist
abstract: Ni – psychic
The way I see it, Big 5 is more fundamental/real while MBTI is easier to make sense of- Ti at high rank is low agreeableness mixed with low conscientiousness. Te at high rank is low agreeableness mixed with high conscientiousness. Ni at high rank is high openness mixed with high conscientiousness, Ne at high rank is high openness mixed with low conscientiousness. But things aren’t black and white like that in big 5 and things fall on percentiles. So the difference between Ti and Te isn’t that big of a deal, and the difference between Ni and Ne isn’t that big of a deal when it comes to actual introversion (introspection) vs extroversion (outward doer of things) especially because the correlation between conscientiousness and extraversion is only 0.129. Same can be said about other functions in mbti, I just see them as specific cases that emerge from Big 5 combinations.
BTW what do you type me as in mbti?
It is hard to tell because Functions are about orientations and orientations can be strong or weak.
I had an insight from an interaction with an ENFJ person. Ni is more about an agenda or single goal well Ne is about multiple goals. because Ni sees everything as one well Ne sees everything as the many.
The ENFJ said that they structure(Ti) their arguments to achieve a certain goal. Mainly a Fe social relation to keeping people from persecuting a certain minority of people.
Fe is group oriented so focuses on everyone being involved. Te is more about giving orders and relying on what to do yourself than on a consensus.
High Te involves high conscientiousness and disagreeability where the person wants to do things without trash blocking them.
High Ti involves low conscientiousness and disagreeability where the person can look through the trash for what they want.
Anime and Flamin are the two most autistic people on the planet
Chris Chan is easily the most autistic person Man has produced.
where are my comments to Anime? that guy is a foolish idiot!
Your comments are not value added.
no exposing me bruh