Few mental tests have been more popular among psychometricians than Comprehension. They are part of the Binet scale, the Army Alpha, and of course the Wechsler series. One thing I like about them, is they are fairly g loaded (0.68 in one quality study) without being as loaded on culture or education as the Information and Vocabulary subtests. Like these subtests, it measures the ability to acquire verbal knowledge, but unlike them it can be easily translated into different languages for cross-cultural comparisons without losing much relevance.
The test is good at spotting high IQ people who lack common sense. I once knew a British woman who was utterly brilliant in her verbal and mathematical skills, yet somehow couldn’t hold a job. Despite her being a hyper-educated adult I had her take the Wechsler children’s intelligence scale which she found super easy (the only adult I ever knew to get the hardest vocabulary question on that test) except for the spatial subtests and Comprehension (where she revealed a tendency towards boorish behavior).
The test seems especially good at picking out people with bad judgement. I have noticed that regardless of overall IQ or g, those who make low scores tend to be the people who are wrong about everything. Whether it’s falling for absurd conspiracy theories, thinking the Earth is flat or simply denying HBD, people with bad judgement tend to make low scores, even when they are otherwise brilliant. For this reason I call it a test of wisdom.
And yet for all the rich clinical data the test provides, it is also among the most criticized. One famous Comprehension item asked “What should you do if you’re sent to the store to buy some bread and the store owner tells you there is no bread left?”
This is an absolutely beautiful item, but critics scoffed that the correct answer (go to another store) was unfair to kids in the ghetto and rural areas because there is often not another store within miles. Of course my own sister failed by answering “I would buy something else” and we grew up in the suburbs so no excuse. But my sharp as a tac mother and no-nonsense father both passed with ease.
The great David Wechsler was very protective of his Comprehension items, especially the ones he grew emotionally attached to. When told by his team that he had to drop the question “Why are women and children saved first during ship wreck?” from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) he allegedly screamed “Chivalry may be dying. Chivalry may be dead. BUT IT WILL NOT DIE ON THE WISC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!“
After he died in 1981, psychologists had a field day purging such classics from his scale and replacing them with new items. In fairness, some of the items Wechsler had grown emotionally attached to may not have met modern statistical criteria for a valid reliable question. Comprehension was eventually relegated to an alternate subtest.
The Comprehension subtest on the PAIS differs from the type on the Wechsler and early Binet in that it’s multiple choice (except for the bonus questions which I have yet to norm). In this way it resembles the WWI Comprehension subtest. The advantage of this is it can be scored by computer and is much less prone to human error than the highly subjective scoring on the Wechsler. The disadvantage is it doesn’t require as much creativity and executive functioning when you only need to select the answer rather than thinking of it yourself, but it still requires the insight and judgement to know why some answers are better than others.
At least nine readers who took the PAIS Comprehension subtest also reported their SATs/verbal SATs/ACTs. The IQ equivalents of their self-reported college boards had a mean of 121 and an SD of 15 (U.S. norms). Their mean score on the 12 item Comprehension test was 7.6 (SD = 1.17).
Assuming a linear relationship between both tests and similar g loadings, we can make some crude IQ equivalences:
Comprehension score (out of 12):
12 = IQ 177 (U.S. norms)
11 = IQ 164
10 = IQ 152
9 = IQ 139
8 = IQ 126
7 = IQ 113
6 = IQ 101
5 = IQ 88
4 = IQ 75
3 = IQ 62
2 = IQ 50
1 = IQ 37
0 = IQ 24
These numbers should be taken with a huge grain of salt, especially at the extremes. For one thing we don’t know if the relationship with IQ is linear since unlike my crossword test, the questions were arbitrarily chosen and do not form a natural scale. Second, the standard deviation of my test respondents is suspiciously low. Although this is great for expanding the test’s ceiling and floor, it is a red flag because it suggests the items themselves intercorrelate poorly which suggests low reliability. At some point I will have to calculate a split-half reliability coefficient to test this hypothesis.
Pumpkin Person 
I would dispute some of the correct answers too. For example, I thought [redacted by pp, 2023-09-21] would be better than [redacted by pp, 2023-09-21] because [redacted by pp, 2023-09-21]. I fully comprehend the advantages of [redacted by pp, 2023-09-21], of course, but I like [redacted by pp, 2023-09-21] better than [redacted by pp, 2023-09-21] personally. Maybe that’s overthinking, I don’t know. Otherwise my score predicted similar iq to the other tests.
Yes, that’s interesting. That question was actually inspired by own experience taking the WISC-R as a a child. A mysterious woman dressed in a sari took me into this sound proof room and administered a long series of questions and puzzles. At one point I remembered her asking what types of books are better for a certain purpose (kindles didn’t exist back then).
And I remember pondering it for like 30 seconds and then finally choosing.
She then clapped her hands together and said “Correct! WHY?”
I later saw the test report where the test was listed as measuring
practical knowledge and social judgement
verbal comprehension and understanding
Acquired social judgement
After that I became OBSESSED with the WISC-R. A year later some head banger (do those still exist?) was forced to take the test to see if he could attend regular high school with the rest of us or needed to attend a trade school. I was hoping he’d be tested by the mysterious Indian woman since he was a YUGE racist and she was famous for putting kids at ease, but the school board had replaced her with a white lady. Nonetheless I was so fascinated that as he was being tested I pressed my ear against the door trying to hear the questions and answers.
I approached him on the play ground the next day or so and begged him to tell me any question. Sensing my desperation, he said “do you have any money?”. I reached in my pockets and gave him $2 which was big money back then especially for him.
Among other things, he told me she asked him whether he’d rather have something made of wood or something not made of wood. Sounded like another judgement question.
When I asked him what the stories in picture arrangement were about he replied only that they were about black people, only he used the N word instead. As a kid I was fascinated by all the black characters in the WISC-R cartoons and even then, intuitively knew it was because a lot of black kids were being tested for special education.
By the time I was 14 or 15 I couldn’t take it anymore. I pretended to be a psychologist and convinced a downtown psychologist to give me her WISC-R. I looked desperately for the question about choosing what type of books are better and whether a wooden this is better than a non-wooden that.
To my horror the questions didn’t exist. Instead the actual question was “In what WAYS” are these types of books better than those types of books. “In what WAYS” are non-wooden these better than wooden that?
For years I thought the testers at my school board had their own mystery version of the test or that they had translated the test into a more conversational form (against the rules) but I now believe it was a case of false memory. Memory is not a tape recorder, instead we reconstruct events in our mind, and for some reason, when asked to explain why X is better than Y, both me and the headbanger reconstructed that as being asked to choose between X and Y and that was the inspiration for the question you dispute.
But yes, the problem with the question is who gets to decide which is better, which is why the Wechsler comprehension subtest just asks you to explain the advantages of one or the other, rather than choose.
I still prefer my false memory cause it’s more interesting but perhaps less psychometrically valid
PP believes in neoliberal narrative in which individuals are only responsible for their own outcomes and not a combination of individual and extra individual factors, often difficult to be controlled or surpassed… sad.
No I believe individuals play a big part but external factors play a much bigger part. Even if we had perfect measures of a person’s intelligence, personality, health, looks, height, energy, athleticism etc, we could never even close to predicting their success (however defined) with perfect accuracy. However IQ probably comes closer to predicting most kinds of success than any other single trait.
Like job performance? Sackett et al found an observed validity of .16 and when correcting for range restriction found .23. This is in-line with the arguments made by Richardson and Norgate (2015)—see table 1.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/
Job performance is tricky because virtually all doctors and lawyers have IQs above 110. When everyone is smart, you’re not going to see a big difference between those who are smart vs those who are very smart. But if the full range of IQ were allowed to practice law or medicine, I guarantee that vast majority of doctors accidentally killing their patients and the vast majority of lawyers who never won a case would come from the below 110 category.
IQ is so important to job performance that despite the U.S. military being desperate for people, and constantly recruiting from the lower class and minority communities, the U.S. congress passed a law that no one with an IQ below 80 (bottom 10%) can serve because there’s absolutely no job in the entire military they are capable of performing at a level that justifies the cost of training them.
While this article gives other arguments.
Yea that’s completely disregarding the Sackett et al/Richardson and Norgate finding and that’s not a response to their findings.
Re doctors and job performance see McManus et al
http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7407/139
I guess a 100 years of military research is wrong because some guy no one’s heard of wrote a paper in a journal no one reads.
Meanwhile Jordan Peterson debunks Pill’s claim that high IQ people are more autistic:
Yea that’s just completely disregarding the actual “relationship” between job performance and “IQ”—the relationship is basically nonexistent, refuting hereditarian claims they’ve been making for decades! Very rational and “high IQ” to reject the best available evidence on IQ and job performance.
From McManus et al:
“Intelligence did not independently predict dropping off the register, career outcome, or other measures.”
Independently of what? So they admit intelligence predicted, just that it didn’t predict anything independently.
Also notice that the measure of intelligence they used (A levels) was also the criteria by which they were selected so these people were probably all in the top 10% in A levels, possibly the top 1%.
And also don’t forget the arguments in that article I cited. The so-called “predictive validity” of IQ is anything but. And don’t even try to use correlations between IQ and achievement tests, because that’s circular.
While McManus et al (2013) showed that the relationship between A-level grades and being promoted to senior doctor was below .2 or not statistically significant.
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-11-242
At the end of the day, the relationship between IQ and hob performance is seriously inflated when in actuality it’s low, low enough to not matter in job selection. Sackett et al is the most recent study on this issue, and it confirms the arguments made by Richardson and Norgate.
While McManus et al (2013) showed that the relationship between A-level grades and being promoted to senior doctor was below .2 or not statistically significant.
Why no correction for range restriction? Probably because the range of scores was so small (no one becomes a doctor in the UK without very high A levels) that if they corrected for that, the correlation would double, possibly triple.
This is like doing a study correlating height with basketball performance and excluding everyone under 6’2″.
Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time and he’s no taller than the average NBA player. I guess there’s no correlation between height and basketball. It must just be a coincidence that the average NBA player is taller than 99.5% of U.S. men. #thinklikeRR
Also being promoted is only a crude measure of job performance. There’s all kinds of politics in who gets promoted, with taller men and sexier women more likely to advance.
I appreciate the enormous amount of research you’ve done, I just think you need to think more critically about what you’re reading.
I’m going to have to side with Pumpkin on this one. I’d be shocked if Lawyers didn’t tend to be more intelligent than a landscaper. It’s kind of obvious it wouldn’t have much predictive power within the same profession, though.
We just had a guy who threw away an easy job making 60k because of his ego. Boss asked him, “Hey, can you stop leaving 30 minutes early?” The dude said, “As someone with his CCNP, this job is beneath me. I don’t have to stay here because I’m too professional.”
The dude was fired on the spot and is now on the no-hire list. He was about to get a cozy internal sales job making over 6 figures plus commission and sign-on bonuses for one of the top 10 Fortune 100 companies to work for, and now it’s all gone.
He was extremely intelligent. Got his CCNA, CWNA, and CCNP in less than a year and had two BSs. And yet, he’ll never make it farther than me, and I don’t even have my CCNA.
Sad.
Before I respond further, are you rejecting McManus’s findings on the basis of range restriction?
“There’s all kinds of politics in who gets promoted, with taller men and sexier women more likely to advance.”
Yea it’s called the “halo effect”
Why are you rejecting the best available evidence (Sackett et al) on the relationship between job performance and IQ? Richardson and Norgate showed how inflated it was, and then Sackett et al gave the argument for the best available evidence for it. So, we should accept that the relationship between job performance and IQ is way lower than what hereditarians thought based on Richardson and Norgate and Sackett et al.
Melo,
Anecdotes or data? The data is clear and the best most comprehensive data that we have (as of last year), the correlation is way lower than Hunter and Schmidt and disciples claimed it was. That’s the fact of the matter.
pp,
rr is in that range where he thinks everyone can be smart and do any kind of job. because he does not understand how much lower or higher people can be in intellect than himself. the danger zone Chris Langan calls it.
AK,
So what’s the response to the cited data?
You mean Chris “Why is Western Civilization not admitting gorillas? They too are from Africa, and probably have a group mean IQ at least equal to that of Somalia. In addition, they have peaceful and environmentally friendly cultures, commit far less violent crime than Somalians” Langan? The same guy who believes the same misunderstanding as PP – the “30 point communication gap”?
My response rr?
you are side steppin the main point pp is making.
that extremely intelligent people regardless of “measured” performance have more capability than mid/high-end intelligent people.
me for example could never be as good as Ben Carson as a doctor.
When compared to all the rest of the population rr, how intelligent do you see yourself?
“Job performance is tricky because virtually all doctors and lawyers have IQs above 110. When everyone is smart, you’re not going to see a big difference between those who are smart vs those who are very smart. But if the full range of IQ were allowed to practice law or medicine, I guarantee that vast majority of doctors accidentally killing their patients and the vast majority of lawyers who never won a case would come from the below 110 category.”
How do you can guarantee this if seems there are no evidence of what you are claiming??
And… job performance shouldnt be just “being succesful based on determined tasks” but and specially by ethical performance and if we add ethics as a relevant piece for job performance i can guarantee to you that there is a disproportional rate of unethical professionals if not most of them. Seems most people who graduate in university do that to earn more money and or boorst their status, they are, just like most people under capitalistic cultural and structural hegemony, mercenaries, because they primarily work for money, and this is specially true for professions like doctors and lawyers.
“When everyone is ‘smart'”
Majority of TECHNICALLY inteligent people are
Normies
Or abnormies, those who love to be always against “common sense” and today we tend to call them “wokes”.
Even thought i agree most of truly smart people, people who maximize their intelligence whatever their levels, would score at least above the greenwhich avg 100, most of people who would score 110 or 120 or higher are not that super humans, IQists tend to think.
Actually, even the “current” system specifically designed to be meritocratic, is not 100% meritocratic. Academia has too much of one type of smarter people, the good memorizers or learners, and too little of other types, because it what it is, because academia selects exactly highly conformistic cognitive performers.
Other visible problem on selective processes from elementary school to higher education is the evaluation of different people based on the same parameters, basically general knowledge. This is specially problematic to higher education if a profession is in itself a specialization. Lots of great specialists (people with uneleven profiles) and real critical thinkers has being rejected to study in univeesities or having a hard time there. I’m not even talking about academic corruption and “subjective” criteria to select students.
Still about intelligence, i dont believe environmental factors have a gigant impact on general and specific cognitive performances but because the deeply structural imperfections of human societies many bad professionals has being favored over good ones by real social privileges and even by current selective method if to market job or university. Yes, SAT, for example, different than most hbd people think, is not that fair.
Keep selecting people only by IQ and not by overall intelectual capacity evaluation, and you will keep having a majority of highly conformist performers, great unethical tricksters and also lots of self declared liberals who dont know the difference between pseudo and real science.. which is very ironic…
We should add some drops of hyperrealism in hbd if it’s not too heretic for you guys.
First, money actually doesnt exist. It’s a human fiction primarily invented by pragmatic reasons.
Second, if money or monetary system is not really real, most of socio economic differences are easily solvable. We could stop to believe in this play and do the right thing.
Third, is ultimately arbitrary determine some professions as more relevant and deservable to earn way more than the avg worker, like lawyers and even health doctors. It is all fictitious.
But i know now why god believers tend to be so capitalistics… because the core of traditionalism is the emphasised belief on hierarchy starting right with the “spiritual” hierarchy, with God as the greater boss.
“you are side steppin the main point pp is making.
that extremely intelligent people regardless of “measured” performance have more capability than mid/high-end intelligent people.”
Where’s the data on this? How does this unevidenced claim gel with the actual data on hob performance and IQ? The fact of the matter is, the correlation was seriously inflated as Richardson and Norgate and Sackett et al showed. So how does what got said gel with what these authors showed?
pp is wrong that IQ tests are used for military recruitment.
ASVAB is not an IQ test. (as per Google)
225 questions are on the CAT-ASVAB and if you get less than 31 answers correct you cannot join the military.
But pp translates it into IQ anyway?
Still, the highest score you can get is 99 or the top 1 percentile.
Just to make it clear to everyone, RR thinks IQ has no effect on job performance. So if youre a trader at a hedge fund, a computer engineer, a mechanical engineer or even a salesperson of medical devices, your intelligence wont effect anything.
The army uses IQ tests because even throwing yourself into bullets requires some sort of IQ. The fact that the army is filled with white trash and blacks means the bar is very very low. I think even RR would be able to join the army to die for Mother Israel.
The ASVAB shows nothing more than acculturated knowledge. The AFQT THAT H and M used in their book is derived from that. So what’s the implication?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1041608000000352
TP, do you accept the best-available data on this issue or not? If not, then why?
“Anecdotes or data? The data is clear and the best most comprehensive data that we have (as of last year), the correlation is way lower than Hunter and Schmidt and disciples claimed it was. That’s the fact of the matter.”
If you’re talking about McManus or whoever, I don’t think his study proves that there aren’t differences in IQ between professions.
Melo I’m talking about the results from Sackett et al who showed that basically Richardson and Norgate 2015 were right about the IQ-job performance correlation being inflated, and that in actuality it’s way lower than the IO psychologists pushed it up to be.
RaceRealist conflates intelligence and IQ.
So even if you are more intelligent by leaps and bounds that will not affect your job performance in any way because everyone has the same intelligence RR thinks.
Forest Gump can be a neurosurgeon RR think, intelligence is all the same.
IQ-ists (and IO psychologists) are the ones who do that.
So, again, do you accept the best evidence we have on the relationship between IQ and job performance or not? If not, why?
If IQ has no relationship with job performance,
Does actual intelligence have a relationship with job performance? Or no?
IQ tests are measures of g, and g is general intelligence, so the IQ-ist argument goes. So what’s the implication there, AK? Can you confirm or deny my previous question? What do you know about Jensen, PC1 and g?
What is “actual intelligence”? For literal decades, IQ-ists have been claiming that IQ has identity with this mysterious “intelligence.” For literal decades, IQ-ists have been inflating the correlation between job performance and IQ. Jensen claimed that IQ gets measure g and that g is “general intelligence.” So if Jensen’s claim is true, what is the implication for this discussion?
Actually Jensen rejected the term intelligence when talking about within species differences. I disagree with him on this point.
Yea i know in g Factor that he went on a few page long argument and rejected the term, but he still for all intents and purposes “used it talking about how g has identity with PC1 (the first principle component).
Yes g is the first principal component to emerge in a scatter plot of cognitive scores. g corresponds very closely to what most people mean by intelligence but Jensen prefers not to give it that name.
Spearman’s g was falsified and Jensen’s g is a tautology. And yea while he did state to “dispense” with the word on p 48-49 (1998), he still wrote a book on…. g and it’s consequences. Basically, don’t use the word “intelligence” but there is still PC1 which is g which is general intelligence.
g can stand for general mental ability so one can believe in g without using the word intelligence. When was g falsified?
Yea and those are “synonymous” in this context—they mean the same things.
“When was g falsified?”
In 1947 by Thurstone and 1992 by Guttman. And also see Heene (2008).
https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2343
g is just whatever causes all known mental abilities to positively correlate in humans. Intelligence refers more to the totality of mental abilities and not just the part that causes them to correlate. Obviously the two would be closely related but not identical.
So g is test construction, then?
I don’t think what I said is wrong. “General mental ability” and “general intelligence” are synonymous—Jensen quite obviously didn’t see that and I don’t know why. So you can not use the term “intelligence”, but you… Still talk about it as evidenced in Jensen’s book. It just doesn’t make sense. And re: positive manifold, that’s also a consequence of test construction.
“Subtests within a battery of intelligence tests are included n the basis of them showing a substantial correlation with the test as a whole, and tests which do not show such correlations are excluded.”
g is general mental ability; intelligence is mental ability in general. Very subtle distinction.
Subtests within a battery of intelligence tests are included n the basis of them showing a substantial correlation with the test as a whole, and tests which do not show such correlations are excluded.”
That’s true but they’ve also done studies where they’ve included every mental ability they could think of, not just the ones used on IQ tests and as expected they found a g factor causing all of them to intercorrelate.
But g is conceptualized as “general intelligence” OR “general mental ability” (GMA). They’re used interchangeably.
At the end of the day, as I said and provided the citation for, Spearman’s g is falsified. So your discussion just begs the question that Spearman’s g HASN’T been falsified. Jensen’s g is a tautology. So this conversation really doesn’t mean anything. Thus, the psychometric quest for latent, hypothetical variables—their golden goose with the golden egg—has failed and failed quite spectacularly.
Jensen’s g is a tautology
If Jensen were defining mental ability as only those that correlate with g, then yes it would be tautological to say g is proven by the correlation of all mental abilities. But in fact there are independent criteria by which we decide what a mental ability is & the researchers you cite are simply unaware of this.
So do you admit that Spearman’s g is false?
No, Jensen’s g is tautological because he identified g with the first principle component. The tautology arises like this (there’s another way but just take these steps):
(1) If there is a general intelligence factor “g,” then it explains why people perform well on various cognitive tests.
(2) If “g” exists and explains test performance, the absence of “g” would mean that people do not perform well on these tests.
(3) We observe that people do perform well on various cognitive tests (i.e., test performance is generally positive).
(4) Therefore, since “g” would explain this positive test performance, we conclude that “g” exists.
Face it—g has been done for for a long, long time.
So your problem is semantics? Instead of calling it g he should have called it PC1?
That wouldn’t alter the tautologous structure of the argument.
g is just the name we give to the first principal component in a matrix of mental tests. The only way to debunk it is to find a mental test that doesn’t correlate positively with it in the general U.S. population.
It’s built into the test though. I’ve shown how Jensen’s g is tautologous and I showed how Spearman’s g was falsified—what do you have left? Nothing.
You said IQ is not a measure of intelligence,
under that premise, if that is true, does actual intelligence exist and what would that be? do you see yourself as more intelligent than others?
under your premise, IQ has no relation to job performance but you also think actual intelligence has no relation to job performance either?
I need to know how you conceptualize “actual intelligence.”
“I need to know how you conceptualize “actual intelligence.”
Ah, I was wondering when the sophistry would begin!
“g corresponds very closely to what most people mean by intelligence”
It is not replicable to ashkenazim and to at least 20% of non-ashkenazi populations.
And the g factor has been found on test performance, not in real world performance. Actually having an uneleven profile is more common, maybe more common than having a very symmetric intelectual profile.
If you got a very symmetric intelectual performances on IQ tests it doesnt automatically means your cognitive capacities are in very similar levels. Lots of people who do well on maths and in language, for example, on scholastic or cognitive tests, dont on real world tasks. Always that IQ deficiencies IQists never want analyse.
If spatial IQ correspond perfectly with spatial intelligence so why the greatest archictets, engineers, scientists of all time has been white europeans??
Probably because IQ tests dont evaluate peak performance but basic one. Even the most difficult IQ tests, it’s look like a game than a real world task with real outcomes.
IQ tests are merely class-specific knowledge tests. They don’t measure any kind of “latent, hypothetical variables.” At best, they show what one was exposed to in their lives—eg, use Vygotsky’s socio-historical theory of learning and development and apply that to “IQ” type thinking with his cultural and psychological tools concepts.
To IQ being only reflective of social class, all wealthiest people should be the smartest and all the poorest should be the dumbest. Lots of exceptions and actually many of the really brightest, those who dedicate their lives to real Science or intelectualism, are modest in terms of amount of wealth they have accumulated.
Billionaires and other similar types, tend to be very smart, which i agree, but in qualitative terms, the brightest are inequivocably those who tend to specialize and truly shine in higher education, because they specialize to lead with intelligence in the most purest way, not as a mean but as an end in itself. And generally a very bright specialists.
Only thing IQ really reflects, not totally, social class, is on verbal linguistic one, because most of it is about memorization/learning of formal way of writing. But the fact most of highly inteligent people learn these primarily and inevitably arbitrary rules is a demonstration of better cognitive capacity, at least to memorize//learn, one of the most important aspect of intelligence.
The complexity of this topic unfortunately IQists and anti-IQ people often avoid or dislike.
All it does is show what one was exposed to in their lives. Read my DEC framework. Read Vygotsky too (this is foundational for my framework).
“Only thing IQ really reflects, not totally, social class, is on verbal linguistic one”
Do you think the Raven is culture free/fair?
PP:
“He is unemployed because he lacks common sense”
This level and below.
What is common sense??
Believe human sensitively perceived races dont exist can be classified as common sense today??
The answer your sister gave isn’t a ‘wrong’ answer dumbass. That test item is not valid and should be removed because you can literally give 50 correct answers to that item.
A good test item has a discrete answer.
Hmm I just read the question again and yes I now see that you have to perhaps say go to another store or order it online or some other more relevant answer.
I don’t think your sister is completely wrong though either. You could easily buy a close substitute to bread like a pastry.
RR is without doubt a painfully stupid troll. Literally the only person in the comment section that thinks RR says anything correct is Melo who admitted he was ‘woke’ and even then thinks RR not believing in evolution or the human brain/mind unitary item is weird.
Go ahead TP, quote me saying I “don’t believe in evolution”—it doesn’t even have to be exactly that, just even quote me what you think is implying that.
Every comment you make implies evolution doesn’t exist.
Wow great job showing me that I made that claim. You sure showed me.
How can a person not believe in evolution? Why are you coming here exactly RR? None of us are going to read your stupid fucking jewish academic papers.
If a dane published a paper saying there was no such thing as a man or a woman, RR would believe it.
I come here because I enjoy talking about the things talked about on this blog. Just say “I’m not going tor read because I’m ignorant.”
You literally know nothing.
Why do you keep embarrassing yourself? I clearly know a lot, which is evidenced by my ability to have multiple conversations with people on multiple topics. Your one-track mind is “Jews did it, written by Jews so reject it.”
Speaking of Jews, I wonder what Pill thinks of this article (which Lion recently promoted):
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-vanishing
Here’s his answer: “Just a ploy to get the gullible goyim to believe something that’s not true; never trust Danes.”
jfc I probably havent read lob in years now but of course he would promote it
I tried to read this but it’s SO cynical…
Only reason jews has been succesful to cheat whites and condemn them/”us” to extinction, is because gentiles, whatever their race or ethnicity, are on avg and already very corruptible…
Jews are white too. “Us” – you’re not white.
How this article defines jewishness. Are they counting mischlings??
That article is fucking trash. RR might have wrote it.
“Today American Jews watch with Solomonic bemusement as Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard is argued before the Supreme Court. On some level we sympathize with the Asian American plaintiffs, who are suing Harvard for using admissions criteria that discriminate against them on the basis of their race. Maybe they really are the new Jews, facing the same barriers—insidious racism, personality scores, rural geographic preferences—that we once did”
They only never “sympathize” with evilwhitesocialracists…
Oh the victimhood. Dude, they basically steal US from its original “elites”, shitted it with “multiculturalism” or en masse non-white immigration and semented this new reversed nazism against white ordinary gentiles but they pretended to play the eternal victims.
Puppy is stupid but in a much more literalist autistic way. He said racism makes blacks violent and make them run over pederstrians in cars for fun or beat the shit out of old asian ladies for fun. He thinks Jim Crow 200 years ago effects the actual behaviour of an R selected black from Chicago right now.
Pill thinks libertarians are autistic yet believes in free speech. Is that a contradiction?
It would have to be a logical contradiction.
Puppys viq is so low he thinks only libertarians like free speech.
Your verbal IQ is so low you can’t see how free speech and free markets are alike. You believe the best ideas will win in the market place of ideas just like libertarians believe the best people win in the economic market. No need for government regulation. It’s a very similar mentality.
Free speech and free markets are nothing alike. Wow. Your analogical thinking is the worst I’ve ever seen.
You’re just too dim to connect the dots.
Free speech and free market have similarities and differences but in terms of ideological inclination, free speech has become more inclined to right wing even thought left wing tend to have a different concept for free speech, less literal but also more ideological than right wing concept, while free market is very center-right. Great majority of left wing people i know including myself (even i prefer labelling myself as a progressivist than left wing) are against free market ideology because we believe it always favor the wealthiest shark over the rest of society (well that’s what we’ve seeing).
Left wing economics is often based on redistribution of wealth from the top to the bottom as the most efficient way to generate more wealth while right wing economics is based on the belief that is needed firstly to free the market (enterpreneuriat) to generate (more) wealth and then distribute it to “all’ social sectors, like, even the rich make more money to himself, he also end up making more money to society he lives.
Non classical marxist Left wing economics actually is based on the idea that internal market or consumerism is fundamental to generate wealth. And it’s also important to highlight that left wing people is not necessarily against any kind of economic freedom but against the wild idea of total market freedom.
Also, by my own interpretation, i think economic freedom is not just the capacity to start a business but all related thing about the (individual) economic freedom, like the capacity to consume, specially about the basic needs, to have control over your own money, etc, and this seemingly more comprehensive concept of economic freedom must require real social justice to be fully reached.
Imagine not understanding the TAAO even when I laid out the theory and its predictions.
Puppy probably thinks RR makes great points. Sometimes puppy privately hopes RR can convince everyone here to stop being HBD aware.
Anti-racism is bad because (a) people have a right to believe what they want about jews and blacks (which happens to be correct most of the time) and (b) free speech.
What does “anti-racism” mean to you?
RR walks into a gym and immediately walks up to all the blacks and brags about his black baby and asks if he can live in the cave with them.
How much do you lift?
Puppy is probably kicking himself that he hadn’t thought of getting a black baby earlier like RR did.
It would be fucking hilarious if RR’s black girlfriend admitted the baby wasn’t his. RR would literally go out the next day and adopt a black baby.
Bruh, it’s crazy how RR lives in your head rent-free.
Also, nice pfp, RR.
I would charge him rent for that, but he can probably barely afford his rent now being that he’s probably on his 5th job of the year right now.
There is a 1 in 4 chance (25%) that you get 3 answers correct by random chance.
23% chance 2 are correct
50% chance 1 is correct.
1% chance that 0 questions are correct.
“Chivalry may be dying. Chivalry may be dead. BUT IT WILL NOT DIE ON THE WISC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!“
What a loser lol
[redacted by pp, 2023-09-22]
I should be honest. In principle, it is best for me to be honest in a situation like this. My boss was open-minded enough to ask me a vulnerable question. [redacted by pp, 2023-09-22].
[redacted by pp, 2023-09-22]
On this question, I was hesitant on whether or not I should touch [redacted by pp, 2023-09-22]makes the most sense for someone like me, who lacks experience and cannot drive a car.
[redacted by pp, 2023-09-22] because I lack experience.
Which is more faulty? Me or the questions?
RR is a lot whiter looking than Mugabe kept implying. I thought he looked sicilian or something. He actually looks very northern italian. Inside Mr fitness trainers head is the idea he can successfully argue with people.
Naples and Calabria.
Inside “philosopher’s” head is the idea that he has anything insightful to say about anything and that he doesn’t need to cite any studies for his empirical claims.
While inside Mr Carpenters head is a nagging suspicion that the people the SPLC calls heretics are right about everything.
You must have walked in on your girlfriend/fiance/mother or whoever banging a black guy. It would explain your weird and irrational fear of black people and why you get headaches when you see interracial sex.
The greatest world power are the high IQ gypsy people. Strong evidence of psychopathy involved!
i dont think Asians are superior. look at Melo and his autistic stupidities and realize that Asians are indeed an inferior race. they are weak neurotic and consistently as well as shamelessly close minded!
they lack a greater purpose and have little resilience. Melo is a great example of this. a loser. a coward with little moral fiber!
look at the Asian race and you will see a defeated people who have no sense of composure and are beginning 2 embrace and take in hostility.
the future is not theirs. the future is mine!
Loaded, it’s Northeast Asians that are arguably superior. Melo is half-South East Asian and half-white.
If you look at the below tree, you see that Southeast Asians branched off very early and are actually part of the Australoid branch.
They actually have nothing to do with Northeast Asians according to this tree. How they ended up looking Mongoloid is a mystery.
On the other hand, this tree is very old and new data may have changed things.
PP can’t take away this dumb thinking. How long??
i am watching the original Friday the 13th PP. do you like the Nightmare on Elm St. movies or nah?
anyways i know i attract a lot of audience members 2 your blog hence why you always bring me back but do you think i add intellectual value 2 your blog?
i know you said i was useless once but isnt that pretty much everyone here including you? we dont really discuss intellectual topics as much as nomenclature and trite arguments 4 stupid things dont you think?
How are you watching f13? Is this your first time seeing it?
How far into the movie are you?
im at the part where theyre playing strip poker im not really interested in slasher films so i just pause and watch later.
like i said i like the Conjuring films more or thrillers like Silence of the Lambs and stuff.
slasher films are meh 2 me. soz.
Yes stop it and watch the rest at night when it’s scary. It’s a gorgeous day. My mother just texted me to go outside
“How they ended up looking Mongoloid is a mystery.”
Well, that’s because they are Mongoloid. Race, at least the kind you’re using, is phenotypic. IQ is also a phenotype, not a genotype….
Funnily enough, all of my half-Filipino siblings are more intelligent than the full-white ones.
But how did they become mongoloid? Their last common ancestor with other mongoloids predates the last common ancestor of caucasoids and mongoloids if you believe cavali-sforza’s tree. Convergent evolution or is the mongoloid phenotype that old or is the tree wrong or recent admixture?
Sadly, Fillipinas is not famous to “produce” “greatest” geniuses, like Italy or UK, nor an avg “smart” people, like Japan.
>But how did they become mongoloid?
I’m not versed in it like I used to be, but it could be due to admixture. There was probably a population of Australoids there that the Mongoloids interbred with when they swept through. And since the Mongoloid phenotype seemed to be more beneficial in that environment, it stuck around.
Do you have an account on X? What’s your handle?
I try to spend as little time there as possible. Not good for your mental health. Being around toxic people literally kills neurons. Much more of a sense of community here.
I followed regardless.
Asians cant be a superior peoples theyre so stupid and socially unaware its insane!
they act so stupid when theyre alone and in another country.
has anyone noticed this? theyre a bunch of walking robots.
Well well well… It looks like “greater male variance” in IQ is explained by… Biased tests. Look who was right again.
Greater variance in male intelligence test scores can be explained by sex-biased test design https://osf.io/83wma/download
I never subscribed to that claim. Highest IQ ever recorded is a female (Marilyn Vos Savant). Highest black IQ ever recorded also female iirc. I always pictured the smartest person in the World as a Chinese lady.
Point is, if test construction (due to biased test design/biased items) can explain outcomes in one group, then it can explain outcomes in others. We have evidence of this also being the case for two white South African groups (where the test was changed to equalized score differences, as Constance Hilliard wrote about in Straightening the Bell Curve), and we know that Terman explicitly changed his original S-B to show no differences between men and women. We also know that there is unconscious bias against blacks on the SAT item selection.
By the way, it seems that vos Savant’s IQ was spurious.
What Marilyn von Savant had done to be considered the smartest woman in the world PP??? Just her scores in IQ tests???
Jewsus…
Hitchen was deadly right about IQists..
maybe IQ wise but not in terms of overall intellect and achievement (obviously since no one knows her). the highest IQ people rarely ever have the open mindedness 2 achieve great things with their intellectual superiority.
its very sad tbh.
highest iq ever recorded was the william james sidis fellow. and the highest iq ever recorded for a “female” was edith stern. the blog has gone down hill
Marilyn scored higher than Edith. Sidis was a teenager by the time the term IQ was invented & thus too old to have highest score since it was based on age ratio but it’s estimated he would have
We also know that there is unconscious bias against blacks on the SAT item selection.
Fucking moron. Puppy ban him.
“Fucking moron. Puppy ban him.”
I have a receipt. Here’s the evidence. What’s your response?
https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol43/iss1/3/
You said male and female brains are exactly the same.
Bias would not work to change that.
And you believe all people have the same intelligence as everyone else.
No matter how you “design” a test the test would always give the same results for brains of the same size.
Nice job not understanding what I said.
And yea, how you “design” (why the scarequotes?) a test does matter, as is evidenced by the examples I gave in another comment. And what I said was “there is no such thing as ‘male and female brains'”, not “brains are exactly the same.”
I cannot download that file.
How do tests bias against females?
Are females better at some things than males? Why? How can that be if male and female brains don’t exist?
“I cannot download that file.”
https://osf.io/preprints/83wma/
“Are females better at some things than males? Why?”
Yea, due to exposure to different things. Have you read my argument and understood it? Do you understand what Terman did to equalize his S-B? And now, 100 years later, it’s confirmed AGAIN, just like Rosser confirmed it for the SAT. What’s so hard to understand about the claim?
“How can that be if male and female brains don’t exist?”
The claim that male and female brains exist means that there are two kinds of brain—that they are dimorphic. But human brains are monomorphic, as Lise Eliot argued. What’s so hard to understand about that? What’s hard to understand about the test construction claim that I’ve been arguing for for many years? It’s a logical inference AND an empirical claim.
Why do the youth in Europe have such a bad herd mentality and do dangerous stupid things all the time? in america its clear who the winners and losers are but in Europe today you see the biggest idiots be the most successful people sometimes.
and the youth is just crazy in Europe like a total disregard 4 social norms etc. not that i should speak i disregard social norms 2.
its sad that people just act the way they do because they can. there is no wisdom in this.
we need more people 2 be courageous and stand up 4 what they know 2 be right even if the consequences are adversity.
people like Pill always bashing America as gay and stupid but im just making a point that Europe also has defectiveness in its quality of people!
When you say to people that youre woke youre supposed to be embarrassed about it Melo. Its basically like saying “I’m a mind controlled idiot that does anything for danes”.
Obviously Melo hangs out with other woke losers and blacks. Probably takes it up the ass from blacks too.
Its obvious Melo was bullied in school by some white jocks or something. Why else would you have such a weird affinity for the blacks? In Melos head the blacks are the most civilised and the whites are the least lol. He thinks Wakanda is a real city LOL.
Do me a favour Melo – buy a plane ticket to an african city of your choice. Let me know how many hours it takes before you get beaten/robbed.
Today at morning in the empty streets of my little town, typically to a sunday, i witnessed two black person walking ahead of me, a young (socially constructed) man and a (socially constructed) woman… the man was carrying a soda bottle and suddenly he beat the woman with it and released it way on the ground.
Statistically speaking, seems predictable that people who pollute the streets with their garbage more frequently tend to be:
Anti social
Low IQ
And black (in places they are more than 0,5% of population)…
What do you think “socially constructed” means?
as scared as Pill is of Africans and their descendants i would say that Latin Americans even the ones descended from pure European stock are a lot more violent aggressive antisocial and just worse people than any African or African American tbh.
Did you finish watching F13? If not finish, after sun set.
i will either tonight or tomorrow night but yes it will be fun. on HBO Max they have the Children of the Corn series which i also started and then they have all the way up to the 4th or 5th F13 iirc.
i will let you know once i am done. again not a fan of slashers so itll be kind of hard 2 enjoy but lets see im open minded 2 having fun with it! thanks! 🙂
I realize the film can feel a little slow and boring for the first 2/3rds but I’m glad you’re going to finish it nonetheless.
yes i will update you once its done etc. and how i felt about it etc. as well! 🙂
Whether a [redacted by pp, 2023-10-10] house is better than a [redacted by pp, 2023-10-10] house depends on a number of factors, not least of which is whether [redacted by pp, 2023-10-10]. Also, there is a strong argument that [redacted by pp, 2023-10-10] is the better choice given that [redacted by pp, 2023-10-10]. A good multiple choice test should have one choice that is clearly correct with the other choices having something you can point to as being obviously incorrect. That is not the case for the questions I’ve mentioned here. Also it isn’t clear to me how the last two questions are scored. Are you just looking for one answer that matches?
Statistical analysis will reveal whether those items are valid or not. Obviously the right answer can’t be too clearly correct or it would be too easy. Not sure which you mean by the last 2 questions. The bonus questions?
Instead of obviously incorrect I should have said definitely incorrect, meaning that there is something you can point to that makes the choice incorrect. This is why it is extremely difficult to design a good multiple choice test.
With regard to validity, you need to define your purpose. If it is to have the results of the test correlate with people’s stated IQs, then I guess you could have any sort of question that does this. But if you’re trying to go beyond that and get at something about social/cultural “comprehension” and not just how well a person’s answers align with your own ideas about things then you need to more work.
The purpose is that the subtest is reliably measuring a specific cognitive ability. If an item is poorly designed, it will have no correct answer in which case it will correlate poorly with the total score of the subtest.
I think you are seriously underestimating what it takes to design valid test items. It will have no correct answer? What does that even mean? For the items in question, we’re talking about something that is “best,” which is a quality that can change in response to various factors–many of which involve social/cultural comprehension. So unless what you’re really asking “Which thing does PP think is best?” or “Which thing would be best if one were living in a fairy tale?” at the very least you should consider changing the wording of the item. As an aside, you should also avoid having the answer of one item rely, or partially rely, on the answer to a previous item.