Tags
In this article I summarize all I have learned to date about seven economic classes in the United States: The poorest 0.27%, the poorest 10.5%, the median American, the richest 4% , the richest 0.27%, the richest self-made one in a million, and the richest self-made person in America (at any given time). The exact dollar value associated with these groups changes over time, especially at the high end, but in recent years, they can be roughly and respectively thought of as the homeless, welfare recipients, median Americans, multi-millionaires, multi-decamillionaires, self-made multi-billionaires, and self-made centibillionaires. These seven groups appear to have have mean IQs of 83, 92, 100, 118, 118, 131 and 151 respectively. By examining the slope of the regression line predicting the cognitive Z score of each class as a function of their normalized economic Z score, I find that the true correlation between IQ and income should approach 0.5, suggesting roughly half the differences in self-made money are associated with IQ.
The poorest 0.27% (the homeless); Average IQ 83
![]() |
| Sample: In 2010, there were 637,077 homeless Americans, out of about 235 million U.S. adults (0.27%). By 2020, there were 580,466 homeless Americans out of about 258 million U.S. adults (0.22%) so the poorest 0.27% can still be roughly thought of as the homeless. |
| Cognitive ability: A 2004 study found that 90 homeless men living in a large shelter in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, had a mean WASI full-scale IQ of 83.92 (standard deviation = 15.24). The WASI was published in 1999, and this study was published in 2004, so we should subtract 1.5 points for old norms which are thought to expire by as much as 0.3 points a year (the Flynn effect), so the homeless likely have a mean IQ of 82.5 (U.S. norms). One problem with this study is that 81% of the sample was black (much higher than the 45% among homeless Americans in general) and these tend to score lower on IQ tests, at least in the general U.S. population, however a UK sample of homeless obtained virtually identical scores on the WASI, despite being 96% white. In the UK study, the WASI full-scale IQ distribution of the homeless has a mean of 84.3. In this study, published in 2011, the WASI norms were by now even more outdated, so we should probably subtract as much 3.6 points for old norms, so this homeless sample had a mean IQ ariund 80.7 (U.S. norms) . Given the IQ of 80.7 (U.S. norms) among the the virtually all-white U.K. homeless sample, the IQ of 82.5 among the mostly blacks American sample is unlikely to be deflated by race, thus 83 is considered the best estimate of the American homeless. |
The poorest 10.5% (welfare recipients); Average IQ 92
![]() |
| Sample: One measure of poverty is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP – commonly known as food stamps. In 1992, 10 million out of 95.67 million U.S. households were on food stamps (10.5 %). |
| Cognitive ability: It’s common knowledge in psychometric circles that reading comprehension tests are statistically equivalent to IQ tests, and a literacy study found that about 2/3 to 3/4 of adult welfare recipients (about 71%) have what’s classified as Level 1 or Level 2 literacy. By contrast, 1/2 of the general adult U.S. population are at these levels. Since by definition, 1/2 of Americans have IQs below 100, it can be deduced that 71% of welfare recipients have IQs below 100. In a normal distribution, the 71 percentile is 8 IQ points (0.53 sigma) above the mean, so if IQ 100 is the 71 percentile among welfare recipients, the average welfare recipient should have an IQ 8 points less. In other words, American welfare recipients average IQ 92 (U.S. norms). Some might object that my analysis falsely assumes welfare recipients have the same IQ variance as the general U.S. population, but the above cited studies of the homeless suggest that poor Americans do indeed have a similar variance to Americans on the whole. |
The median American; Average IQ 100
![]() |
| By definition, the median American is at the 50th percentile financially. |
| By definition, the median American is at the 50th percentile in IQ which equates to IQ 100 (U.S. norms). |
The richest 4% (multi-millionaires in 2023); Average IQ 118
![]() |
| Sample: According to the 2000 book The Millionaire Mind by Thomas J. Stanley, which reported on a national survey of 733 millionaires (defined here by household, not individual net-worth), which at the time the book was written, were 4% of U.S. households. The top 4% were largely self-made, with only 8% inheriting more than half their wealth. Of course a $1 million is no longer enough to rank in the top 4%; one now needs $4.7 million, thus the top 4% should now be thought of as all multi-millionaires, at least with respect to household net wealth. |
| Cognitive ability: The average self-reported SAT score of the richest 4% in Stanley survey was 1190. Since Stanley noted that the typical member of this class was 54 circa 1998 (when the book was being written), he likely took the SAT in 1961 (when he was 17) which at the time equated to an IQ of 126 according to my research. But Stanley suspected a self-reporting bias was inflating the numbers since “A students” were more likely to recall their score than “C students”. If we conservatively assume that the 39% of the sample who did not report scores either did not do as well or could not have done as well so didn’t take the test, then an IQ of 126 no longer reflects the average of the richest 4%, but instead just the average of the top 61% of this class, which in a normal curve, would be the 70th percentile. Assuming normal distribution and assuming the richest 4% have the same IQ variance as Americans as a whole just like the homeless did, the 70th percentile is 8 IQ points above the mean, so we should expect the average IQ of all the richest 4% to be 118 (U.S. norms). |
The richest 0.27% (multi-decamillionaires in 2023); Average IQ 118
![]() |
| Sample: Although one “only” needed a household net-wealth of at least $1 million USD to make Stanley’s sample, some in his sample were decamillionaires (net-wealth of at least $10 million) which at the time the book was written, were 0.27% of U.S. households (can be inferred from the data in this article). By 2023 one needed multi-decamillionaire status to make the top 0.27%. |
| Cognitive ability: Above I noted that the richest 4% had a mean SAT score equating to IQ 118 (U.S. norms). Because Stanley found virtually no correlation between net-worth and SAT among his sample, it might be assumed that the richest people in his sample also averaged IQ 118 (U.S. norms). Of course if the data was not normalized, the zero correlation might be misleading. |
The richest self-made one in a million (multi-billionaires in 2023); average IQ 131
![]() |
| Sample: In the Forbes 1993 ranking of the 400 richest Americans, 49.5% inherited their wealth (see table 1 of this study) which means the remaining 50.5% were the 202 richest self-made Americans out of about 158 million Americans aged 25+ in the early 1990s (0.0001%, ) or roughly the richest self-made one in a million. In the early 1990s it took just over $300 million USD to rank among the richest self-made one in a million but by 2023 it would take over $3 billion, so being one in a million now requires multi-billionaire status. |
| Cognitive ability: In 1997 Daniel Seligman discussed the IQ of the Forbes 400: “It seems marvelously symbolic that William H. Gates III, the guy listed as number one on The Four Hundred, has an obviously breathtaking IQ. The figure 170 keeps getting into print, which would make him almost certainly the highest on this list or any other list you’re likely to be looking at soon. To be sure, one occasionally sees conjectures that Steven Ballmer, Microsoft’s executive vice president, worldwide sales and support, is in the same IQ league as Bill himself. Ballmer is number six among The Four Hundred.” The 170 seems to be an estimate from his childhood school teacher, however it’s nonetheless corroborated by a claim that he scored 1590 on the pre-1995 SAT which Gates himself seemed to confirm to David Rubenstein during a Q & A at the launch of the Harvard campaign on Sept 21, 2013. Fellow Microsoft leaders Steven Balmer and Paul Allen each scored a perfect 1600 on the SAT according to the Harvard Crimson and the New York Times respectively though neither publication provided a source. At the very least we can assume at least one of these three men scored 1590+ which equated to an IQ of 170+ on the pre-1995 SAT (see chart at the bottom of this article). At the other extreme, Bill Cosby, who with a then net worth of $340 million, made the botttom of the Forbes 400 in the early 1990s, told David Letterman he had a combined SAT score of 500. Very little is known about how the SAT mapped to IQ in the 1950s when Cosby would have taken the test, but data from 1966 suggests an IQ equivalent of 84. However prior to the 1980s, African American teenagers underperformed their IQs on scholastic tests by 8 points, so adjusting for this, his IQ equivalent becomes 92. In Cosby’s case this is likely a colossal underestimate, however for every person who is underestimated by the SAT, there’s someone else who was overestimated, so the SAT distribution should mirror the IQ distribution, even if it’s sometimes quite wrong in individual cases. If we assume that in the early 1990s, the IQs of the self-made members of the 400 richest Americans ranged from 92 (Cosby) to 170 (Gates, Ballmer &/or Allen), then the mid-point of the range is 131 which is a reasonable estimate for the richest 0.0001% (self-made). ![]() |
The richest self-made person in America at any given time (centibillionaires in 2023); average IQ 151
![]() |
| Sample: Ever since Forbes began annually publishing the names of the “400 richest Americans” in 1982, only eight people have ever topped the list: shipping magnate Daniel Ludwig (1982), oil tycoon Gordon Getty (1983-1984), Walmart founder Sam Walton (1985-1988), media mogul John Kluge (1989-1991), Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates (1992, 1994-2017), investor Warren Buffett (1993), Amazon founder Jeff Bezos (2018-2021), and Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk (2022-2023). Of these, only five are alive today, and of those only four are self-made (Gates, Buffet, Bezos and Musk) out of 143 million Americans from generation X or older (anyone younger has not had enough time to amass such wealth). Thus becoming the richest self-made American is about a one in 36 million level achievement. |
| Cognitive ability: For the first time ever, we just happen to have publicly known IQ data on every single living self-made person who was ever ranked as the richest American. As mentioned above, Bill Gates reportedly scored 1590 on the pre-1995 SAT, equating to an IQ of 170 (see chart at bottom of this article). Jeff Bezos told The Washington Post he scored 1450, which equated to an IQ of 146. According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Elon Musk scored 1400 on the pre-recentered SAT, equating to an IQ of 142. According to his sister Doris, a woman administered an IQ test to Buffet at age 10 and he scored a couple points above 150. However back in 1940, most IQs were still calculated using the age ratio method meaning a 10-year-old who performed as well as the average 15.2-year-old, was developing at 152% his chronological age and thus assigned an IQ of 152. Although this method (normed entirely on whites) formed a Gaussian curve from IQ 50 to 150, the mean and SD were 101.8 and 16.4 respectively, a little higher than on most modern scales where the mean is set at 100 and the SD at 15. Converting to the modern scales gives Buffet an IQ of 146 (U.S. white norms; also 146 on U.S. norms). Amazingly, all four living members of the “richest self-made person” in America club have IQs of at least 142 (99.7th percentile) and the mean is a spectacular 151 (99.97th percentile)! To quote the late Daniel Seligman “people who are the top in American life, are probably there because they’re more intelligent than the rest of us.” ![]() |
Summary of data

| Economic class | Median economic level (derived by cutting the percentage in each class in half) | Median economic Z score | Median IQ (U.S. norms) | Median cognitive level | Median cognitive Z score |
| Poorest 0.27% (homeless) | Poorest 0.14% of America | -3 | 83 | Dullest 13% of America | -1.13 |
| Poorest 10.5% (welfare recipients) | Poorest 5.25% | -1.6 | 92 | Dullest 30% | -0.53 |
| Median American | Median income | 0 | 100 | Median intelligence | 0 |
| Richest 4% (multi-millionaires in 2023) | Richest 1% (self-made) | +2.07 | 118 | Brightest 11% | +1.53 |
| Richest 0.27%(multi-decamillionaires in 2023) | Richest 0.14% (self-made) | +3 | 118 | Brightest 11% | +1.53 |
| Richest self-made one in a million (multi-billionaires in 2023) | Richest self-made one in 2 million | +4.93 | 131 | Brightest 1.9% | +2.07 |
| Richest self-made person in America at any given time (centibillionaires in 2023) | Richest self-made one in 72 million level (self-made) | +5.53 | 151 | Brightest 0.03% | +3.4 |
To make them easier to compare, I have converted both the median economic level and and median IQ of each economic class into normalized Z scores. This was accomplished by equating the percentile rank of both variables with the number of standard deviations from the mean they’d be if both variables fit a perfectly normal curve.

Discussion
As the above graph shows, when both variables are normalized, the IQ-income correlation is strikingly linear throughout the full economic range, from extreme poverty all the way up to centibillionaire status. Indeed the value of the Pearson's r coefficient is a near-perfect +0.9739.
Of course this is the correlation among entire economic classes and thus is more than double what the individual level correlation would be because non-cognitive factors that affect income (luck, hard work, greed, health, appearance, connections etc) cancel each other out at the group level. Known in the literature as ecological correlations, group level correlations are commonly used in epidemiological studies.
To estimate what the correlation would be at the individual level, we take the slope of the line of best fit which is equal to said correlation when both variables are normalized Z scores. This slope is 0.47 so roughly half of the normalized differences in economic class is associated with IQ.
The 0.47 figure is much higher than the IQ-income correlation usually reported in the literature and that's because it reflects the correlation of one's IQ with their (self-made) economic class and economic class (homeless, multimillionaire) is a much more stable and reliable indicator of financial success than a single year's income which in the case of stay-at-home wives, can dramatically underestimate their financial earnings since these typically come in the form of domestically negotiated life style, not official salary. In the case of panhandlers, welfare recipients and the disabled, income can overestimate self-made economic class because income is subsidized by government or the charity of strangers.
Indeed other research has found that when you exclude women and focus on permanent income, the IQ income correlation does indeed approach 0.5.
Of course the solution is not to exclude stay-at-home moms (and dads) from the studies, however assigning them zero earnings is wrong too since it implies they are freeloaders who earned nothing of the household wealth when in fact many of them were invaluable partners or at the very least, married wisely. One could solve this problem by using household income as the measure of earnings but this seems unfair to all the single people and gives housewives too much credit for their husband's money.
If research on IQ and income should persist, I suggest that for individuals, income be measured as individual income but for married people, earnings be measured as [individual income + 0.5(household income)]/2. I further suggest that this be averaged over as many years as possible and that welfare/disability, undeclared income and child benefits be excluded.









The IQ-income relationship is due to family background and schooling, not IQ though.
Murray showed that even among siblings in the same rich families, the higher IQ sibling makes more money:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4901569_IQ_and_Income_Inequality_in_a_Sample_of_Sibling_Pairs_from_Advantaged_Family_Backgrounds
That’s confounded by birth order and maternal attitudes.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/684445
No it’s not. The brighter sibling can be older or younger.
And 50 years ago Bowles and Nelson showed that adult income was due to years of schooling and family social status, not IQ. Ceci showed the same.
They might have shown that high income people are more likely to be educated but unless they randomly assigned people of different IQ levels to different education levels, it’s impossible to know whether the income was caused by the schooling or if both the schooling and the income were caused by IQ.
Also, higher quality research has found IQ predicts income independently of schooling:
Even holding the level of education constant, measures of personality traits have significant effects on earnings. Similarly, IQ is rewarded in the labor market, independently of education.
https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/04/earnings-effects-of-personality.html
Murray had a throwaway line about birth order. He didn’t control for it. Lehmann et al used the same dataset as Murray (NLSY79).
Schooling increases IQ. But we also know that the correlation between GPA 5 or more years after graduation is a mere 0.05. IQ doesn’t cause anything.
Ceci used a higher quality dataset than Terman’s and found what I stated above. People in group A had fathers and grandfathers that were better educated than in group C, but even though they had equivalent IQs, they had different social statuses. Thus social status of the children’s parents had more of an effect on their labor market outcomes than did IQ. Ceci also found that those who were in the top of years of schooling completed were like 10 times as likely to have incomes in the top quartile compared to those who were in the bottom quartile of years of schooling completed, and this isn’t due to IQ because the identical result was observed when IQ was controlled for.
Murray had a throwaway line about birth order. He didn’t control for it. Lehmann et al used the same dataset as Murray (NLSY79).
Did they replicate his study with birth order controlled and found the effect of IQ vanished? If not it’s just speculation.
Schooling increases IQ.
It probably does make people more test savvy but until we randomly assign people to different levels of schooling, it could be that IQ increases schooling
Ceci used a higher quality dataset than Terman’s
Doubt it. The Terman study I cited looked at LIFE TIME income which is very hard to get.
People in group A had fathers and grandfathers that were better educated than in group C, but even though they had equivalent IQs, they had different social statuses.
That just proves family background matters. It does not prove IQ does NOT matter.
Thus social status of the children’s parents had more of an effect on their labor market outcomes than did IQ.
The book THE BELL CURVE found the opposite.
Ceci also found that those who were in the top of years of schooling completed were like 10 times as likely to have incomes in the top quartile compared to those who were in the bottom quartile of years of schooling completed, and this isn’t due to IQ because the identical result was observed when IQ was controlled for.
It wouldn’t surprise me if a 120 IQ with a university degree made way more money than a 120 IQ who dropped out of high school in part because the former is likely to be harder working, more mentally stable and from a more upper class background. That’s why it’s hard to know what’s causing what unless we could assign people of different IQs to different education levels at random.
“Did they replicate his study”
They didn’t discuss IQ but that’s not really relevant, since the actual speculation is what you said, since Chuck didn’t control for birth order.
“it could be that IQ increases schooling”
That’s your burden to prove.
“Doubt it”
Ceci used Project Talent. It’s also very unlikely that IQ causes income, since IQ doesn’t predict income independent of schooling and parental SES. Education and SES predict income independent of IQ, but IQ doesn’t predict income independent of SES and education. And Hauser found the same thing as Ceci.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289095/
“The book THE BELL CURVE found the opposite”
Got a page number? How does that refute Ceci’s and then Hauser’s findings? Funny enough, both Ceci’s and Hauser’s argument makes Herrnstein’s syllogism crumble. And group A and C men, even though they had equivalent IQs, they didn’t have equivalent social statuses. Thus social class, not IQ, is what affects income.
They didn’t discuss IQ but that’s not really relevant, since the actual speculation is what you said, since Chuck didn’t control for birth order.
I doubt it make much if any difference:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/09/are-firstborn-children-really-destined-for-success-not-according-to-the-latest-science
That’s your burden to prove.
No it’s yours. You’re the one claiming school increases IQ.
Ceci used Project Talent. It’s also very unlikely that IQ causes income, since IQ doesn’t predict income independent of schooling and parental SES.
IQ does not have much predictive power of one year’s salary at age 30, but if Ceci had LIFE TIME income, he likely would have found an independent effect from IQ.
Also, controlling for IQ can be very misleading. For example you and Anime have similar IQs but you have much more formal education. Is your income higher than Anime’s because you stayed in school longer? No it’s because you have much more mental health and physical energy.
Education and SES predict income independent of IQ, but IQ doesn’t predict income independent of SES and education.
That’s partly because if a high IQ person lacks SES and education, he or his family are probably defective in some other way that caused him to have low education and bad background. Meanwhile if a high education person lacks IQ, he or his family probably have other amazing qualities that allowed him to have high education and background despite low IQ.
Ceci’s results would be much more convincing if he assigned people to education & SES backgrounds at random, though that’s almost impossible to do.
But having said that, Ceci’s othe research does show IQ correlates with income independent of education (see figure 2):
Click to access critique_b_income.pdf
Got a page number?
36
“I doubt it make much if any difference”
I mean Lehmann et al showed it marks a difference—it’s a clear difference-maker.
“No it’s yours”
I’d say it is, and I cited 2 papers below on it.
Controlling for IQ isn’t misleading. We can understand the effect of SES and education without any potential confounding effect of IQ. Do you have evidence for your conjecture? Fig. 2 shows that going to college has effects leads to higher earning potential.
Of course it’s impossible to adding people to education and SES backgrounds at random, so that’s irrelevant. And the Hauser study is newer and shows that the IQ-income relationship is mediated by education.
And the AFQT (ASVAB) is acculturated learning.
your post is still TOTALLY FUCKED UP!
FIX YOUR BLOG’S EDIT SOFTWARE!
How am I supposed to fix it? I don’t work for wordpress.
^^^BLACK AUTISM^^^
wordpress comment editor goes from
editor 1 to editor 2
it will always allow choosing the former.
peepee: but i can’t figure it out because racism!
LAME!
What you’re complaining about is block editing and you’re not the only one who is pissed. Other blogs have tons of angry users but wordpress has no solution:
Hello everyone,
It is not possible to disable this functionality, but we greatly appreciate all of your detailed and constructive feedback.
This update was the start of an ongoing project to improve the experience and functionality of comments on WordPress.com sites. We are sharing feedback directly with the developer team and appreciate this ongoing conversation so that we can work together to improve the experience.
Thanks!
https://wordpress.com/forums/topic/using-a-block-editor-for-comments/
^^^TOTALLY MISUNDERSTANDS BECAUSE LOW IQ^^^
reportedly
corroborated by a claim
Because Stanley found virtually no correlation between net-worth and SAT among his sample
the correlation is so incredible that it’s been reported as even higher by many other pipo in the recent past.
sad.
huh?
“0.5 < 0.47.” — peepee
“the philosopher” is 2 words.
Income
It has been suggested that “in economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures something with decreasing marginal value” and it “is important to have enough of it, but having lots and lots does not buy you that much”.[164][165]
The link from IQ to wealth is much less strong than that from IQ to job performance. Some studies indicate that IQ is unrelated to net worth.[166][167] The American Psychological Association’s 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that IQ scores accounted for about a quarter of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes.[15] Charles Murray (1998) showed a more substantial effect of IQ on income independent of family background.[168] In a meta-analysis, Strenze (2006) reviewed much of the literature and estimated the correlation between IQ and income to be about 0.23.[21]
Some studies assert that IQ only accounts for (explains) a sixth of the variation in income because many studies are based on young adults, many of whom have not yet reached their peak earning capacity, or even their education. On pg 568 of The g Factor, Arthur Jensen says that although the correlation between IQ and income averages a moderate 0.4 (one-sixth or 16% of the variance), the relationship increases with age, and peaks at middle age when people have reached their maximum career potential. In the book, A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligman cites an IQ income correlation of 0.5 (25% of the variance).
A 2002 study[169] further examined the impact of non-IQ factors on income and concluded that an individual’s location, inherited wealth, race, and schooling are more important as factors in determining income than IQ.
peepee: but muh correlation n shit.
using the GSS lion found that IQ was negatively correlated with income above some high level.
peepee: lion is just mad he’s not rich n shit. wordsum isn’t an IQ test n shit.
Mom 67 years old
net worth $208,500
Anime 36 years old
net worth $157,900
–
According to CNBC, the median net worth in the U.S. by age in 2023 is:
Under 35: $39,000
35 to 44: $135,600
45 to 54: $247,200
55 to 64: $364,500
65 to 74: $409,900
75+: $335,600
anime 36 years old
net worth $157,900
Do not give any of that money to ANYONE under any circumstances. There will be people pretending to be your friend and good looking women saying they love you, but no matter how lonely you may feel, do not give any of these people a penny.
All of it is in property value.
If I sold my house that would be it.
But right now, I am just trying to get back to school.
The doctor said school is free now in New Mexico.
When I get my roommate to colorado I will do that.
Also, don’t get mRNA vaxxed.
Put some money in Big Tech stocks. If Big Tech fails, stocks won’t matter much because worldwide crisis anyway. If they succeed (possibly as they gradually enslave and systematize us, as per the plan) then you’ve made some extra ZOGbucks.
Lurker, you’re the average “fight hellfire with hellfire” anti-Zionist ethnonationalist type. What kind of life do you expect to lead by siphoning off ephemeral “ZOGbucks” as you say, if currency becomes biometric and centralized? For what it’s worth, although I believe all three Abrahamic religions are evil, it’s not a grand Jewish conspiracy. Human “kindness” cancels itself out in the big picture, because the objects of our altruism are either random or predicated on in-group bias. Selfishness is what doesn’t cancel out. Market forces are driven by myopic greed, independently of the actions of any one person. Everyone is enslaved to the kind of “entropy” that emerges in systems amenable to modeling as large ensembles of point particles bumping into each other. The economy is very, very amenable to this.
Well then, give your advice as to what people should buy. There are virtually unlimited things to use your money on that have more utility than the money itself. But, I’m just talking about increasing your bank account.
What you fail to understand is that you don’t actually own money. It is illegal in the United States to destroy currency. That money is, sensu lato, property of the state. You exercise a limited right specifically to transact with it. My point is that, if big tech does succeed (and big tech may substantially be Jewish but, instead of Jews dictating big tech, the cold optimization of big tech dictates the behavior of those Jews who participate), there will be no point to your limited control of whatever money you make. You will not be able to use it for anything meaningful, and you will have wasted that time failing to prepare for a global technocapitalist surveillance state. The potential utility of that resource goes to zero as soon as the state wants to prevent you from doing something (look at crypto exchange regulations for an example of what I mean).
the correlation may be incredible but what it is ?
Did you calculate the overall matrix correlation between those datasets because the « correlation » at each point is not meaningful (50% ?)
It could be in the title of the article.
The correlation is about 0.97 at the group level, and 0.47 at the individual level.
More school does not equal more intelligence.
More intelligence is required to do harder problems.
In school they only give you harder problems to solve if you can do the easy problems first. That is why they have advanced courses in middle and high school. Not everyone can solve the hard problems.
Every year of school IQ does go up but not because of school but because people can do the work in their field.
Simple fact: if you cannot do the school work you don’t graduate.
The reason you would not be able to, with all factors being constant, is not having the intelligence to do it.
“Every year of school IQ does go up but not because of school”
This is demonstrably false. Each year of school increases IQ by 1 to 5 points. And the effect of schooling on IQ was observed even as early as the 1920s.
Click to access Ritchie-Tucker-Drob-2018-Psych-Science-How-Much-Does-Education-Improve-Intelligence.pdf
Click to access 703.pdf
And we know that summer vacation slightly decreases IQ, especially for low SES children.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/11/14/summer-vacation-and-iq-how-summer-vacation-widens-educational-inequality/
You are only looking a K-12 research rr
If you look at higher education it take more intelligence to be a physic major than a social worker.
The reason rr you are a fitness trainer and not a quantum physicist is because it is too hard for you to do.
In order to do a phd of 12 years in physics it take at least an IQ of 140+
Got a source for that claim? How do you know IQ is causal for that? And giving a chart with majors and IQs isn’t evidence for the claim. And we also know that the correlation between GPA-job performance correlation 5 or more years after graduation is 0.05.
And your specific claim (“Every year of school IQ does go up but not because of school”) is clearly false as the papers I cited attest. Do you have any references for your new claim?
@Race Realist
It is a clear fact social work takes less intelligence that quantum physics. Fuck you if I need to explain that to you again.
No source? Got it.
harder problems don’t require higher intelligence – rr fitness trainer logic
RR knows that test scores, correlations, and studies can be made up if someone tries hard enough, but actual cognition cannot be manufactured, so he prefers spamming “data” when it suits him and only using apriori arguments up to the level of detail (even if they’re inconsistent) that can support acculturationalism (blank slatism).
It’s the same basic strategy as DEI hires, or affirmative action. Just spot the stupid diverse people extra points on whatever test or requirements you have, or give them extra bankerbux, and voila! Everyone is magically equal.
You’re making an empirical claim. Asking PP commenters to provide references for their claims is their anathema.
dude you don’t need references all the time
why do you believe social worker need more intelligence that physics majors, that’s not common sense.
you simply cannot comprehend things due to motivated low intelligence (i.e. you are playing dumb)
you cannot have normal conversations because that would challenge what you believe and you don’t change you mind for any reason whatsoever.
I constantly read. (Saying I don’t read references is a good one, seeing as you haven’t read any of the ones I’ve given you.) I just have a higher standard of evidence than you do. You simply don’t seem to understand that you’re making an empirical claim and when someone asks you to back it with a reference you need to do so. Like I did with the claims I made.
I’ve changed my mind in the past, so don’t tell me I don’t want to change my mind. Tell me, when was the last time you changed your mind and what was it? I used to be an IQist like you, then I changed my mind due to solid arguments (from Ken Richardson and Steven Heine, and then DST and philosophy of mind, believing the CIM).
So don’t tell me I don’t want to change my mind, when I’ve done so. Also
Taking 12 years to obtain a PhD in any field likely implies an IQ far below 140 on average. The average professor of physics is 125-135, and the average professor of physics takes less time to obtain his PhD.
That doesn’t prove the claim though.
RaceRealist: “If there’s no stick involved, it’s not an objective measurement.” – March 5th, 2024
As you can see, RR loves scientific rigor.
Psychometrics isn’t science.
You didn’t show me how each of those words is related to a piece of wood so I’m not quite sure what you meant.
Finally Anime gets it. RR is playing dumb. He doesn’t want to hurt the feeling of his beloved blacks. Hahaha.
TP, the Rock meme is for you
RR has 2 be the most autistic incompetent loser of all time.
instead of showing us all these things he should make a profit off of it like the money hungry Jew he is.
you’re not even competent in physiology and thus make a shitty personal trainer.
I will make this simple:
when problems get too hard people drop out
higher education requires you to solve harder problems
more intelligence will allow you to solve harder problems and thus advance education levels.
I believe new analysis should be undertaken regarding education levels with respect to corresponding IQ and income.
Higher education has radically changed in the last decade. The concept of grade inflation at so called elite schools, DEI admissions, the difference of rigor between STEM and liberal arts, etc..
Agreed in part. There’s a hysteresis here. Of course having a Harvard degree will give you a leg up on Wall Street, but without sufficient IQ you’ll still be outcompeted by someone from a poorer university with more financial savvy. The hysteresis I mention is that anti-meritocracy is beginning to catch up with top programs. Schools are and are not businesses, in the sense that the business of modern universities is social engineering while the business of modern businesses is generating profit. Corporations that care little about public image (and stand to lose little from its fluctuations because merit matters for their work) are caring progressively less and less about academic pedigree. This isn’t a specious relationship. In a world that prioritizes wealth, intelligence should correlate to a certain extent with wealth because intelligent people are adaptable enough to secure it.
50% of the Ivy league in america is upper class nepo kids, athletes, and affirmative action.
Basically if you meet a white gentile from the Midwest who went to Harvard to do a STEM degree, you are talking to a legit genius because he had to overcome discrimination from neoliberals and ashkenazim.
As a piece of economics work, this paper is shocking. Maybe the worst paper I’ve ever seen. I take back what I said about you being perfect for Chicago.
You said: “correlation among entire economic classes and thus is more than double what the individual level correlation would be because non-cognitive factors that affect income (luck, hard work, greed, health, appearance, connections etc) cancel each other out at the group level.”
…Are you retarded? Not even Ayn Rand said that. Not even Hayek would say that. How the fuck would being blind ‘cancel out’ with being lucky??? Are you crazy? If any of the top 4 richest men was born blind they would be 99% less wealthy. If any of the top 4 richest men was born to schizo on welfare, again, a 99% haircut on their lifetime income. Every single one of these 4 was born in the upper class. Read their biographies. Elon’s father owned a gold mine. Gates father had a mansion. Buffet’s dad was a US congressman.
Your economic theory is the worst economic theory I have ever seen.
You misunderstood Pill. All I’m saying is the AVERAGE rich person is guaranteed to be smarter than the AVERAGE poor person, but the individual rich person is not necessarily smarter than the average poor person, so the group level correlation is twice what the individual would be.
You just don’t get. Work ethic, class or health don’t ‘cancel out’ in a group because they aren’t invididual traits. They are GROUP traits.
I even think RR might like it when I say being born black or native american basically means you have a basically zero chance of being rich no matter what your IQ is.
No you don’t get it. The group is people of a given economic level. Those who are too smart or too dumb for their income level cancel out.
Youre not even making sense anymore. I didn’t say IQ. I said all these other factors like health or class or race – you said in your quote above that these ‘cancel out’ which is nonsense.
Anyways, if you seriously think the correlation between IQ and wealth is 0.6 or whatever based on weird and autistic assumptions then keep living like that.
I guarantee health is a much bigger factor than IQ. Even Ayn Rand would agree with that.
Youre not even making sense anymore. I didn’t say IQ. I said all these other factors like health or class or race –
Those other factors are why in a typical scatter plot predicting IQ from income, you see enormous scatter around the line of best fit. Many of the people who were less healthy or privileged than is typical of their income, will have IQs way above what’s expected from their income since they had more to overcome, and all the people who were blessed with good health and privilege might have IQs below what is expected from their income (since they didn’t need to be as smart since they were privileged and healthy)
But if you simply plot the IQs of the AVERAGE person from each income level, the average person, BY DEFINITION, will be average on all traits for his income level (IQ, health, class etc) and thus the amount of deviation from the line of best fit will be much less, hence the correlation doubles when each data point is the average IQ of everyone from a given income, not a randomly selected individual. The same would happen if we plotted the average health as a function of income. Correlations are always much higher when you use aggregated data
And taking the square of the 0.47 correlation between IQ and income tells us that 22% of the variation in lifetime income is associated with IQ leaving 78% to be explained by other factors like health, class, race, ambition, greed, luck, hard work, good looks, sociopathy etc.
pill cannot tell that what happens on the individual level is not what happens at the group level.
a person born healthy will become richer than a person born unhealthy. but a person with low iq will become poorer than a person with high iq even with connections.
pill just does not understand what it means for variables to cancel out at large scales. he always thinking in personal terms not group terms, idiot. oh your black you must be poor and stay poor no matter what, pill the reatard logic. it is because he is european where class matters more than intelligence. no social mobility like in usa.
“a person with low iq will become poorer than a person with high iq even with connections.”
Interesting claim here. Got a reference?
“In an additional analysis, we considered three IQ groups (high, average, and low) of approximately equal sizes and examined the homogeneity of regressions of earnings on social class and education within these three IQ groups. Regressions were essentially homogeneous and, contrary to the claims by those working from a meritocratic perspective, the slope for the low IQ group was steepest (see Figure 4.1). There was no limitation imposed by low IQ on the beneficial effects of good social background on earnings and, if anything, there was a trend toward individuals with low IQ actually earning more than those with average IQ (p = .09). So it turns out that although both schooling and parental social class are powerful determinants of future success (which was also true in Terman’s data), IQ adds little to their influence in explaining adult earnings.”
i agree with chomsky though. if it were the case that all anyone cared about was making as much money as possible, then the correlation between IQ and income and wealth would be a lot stronger.
If you look at every single super genius like Langan, Terry Tao, Von Neumann, Einstein, Vos Savant or even the autistic rain man ‘genius’ people like Bruno, Kripke and Wittgenstein…none of them were in the top 1% or even top 10% of income. None. Half this list also came from the upper class background and still they didn’t have super high incomes like Puppy’s rubbish theory predicts.
Anyone that studies wealth and income knows the number 1 factor in being rich is who your parents are period. Right now there are maybe a million 130 IQ plus peasants living in China and India that are literally shitting into a hole in the ground and nothing they do will make them earn a top 10% income, even in their own country.
RR is also ‘correct’ that race is a factor but not because of ‘racism’. Its the fact that blacks shoot themselves in the foot with genetic predisposition to poor impulse control and violence and native americans have some sort of genetic affinity for alcohol. Obviously being jewish is basically better than being a high IQ person. Period. Even though it entails being a high IQ person.
partially right.
I’m much much higher than 1%, around 0,05% in income in my country.
It’s because I own many many flats in Paris that gives me more than 1k each one per month free of taxes. That’s thanks to my family savy investments strategy.
Then I also earn a just top 1% professional income. I could be at top 0,01% by earning 5/10 times more but I prefer job interest and prestige to just money. A bit like a central banker strategist who could earn more at an investment bank.
so there are some truth but you situate me at a much lower level of income than the truth.
Then my wife is at a 0,6% income earning 18k per month before tax (average for a job is 13,5k a month so she is just slightly above) as an anaesthesiologist physician working in hospital and private practice.
Income level are much lower at 10%, 1% and 0,1% in France than in the USA.
If you look at every single super genius like Langan, Terry Tao, Von Neumann, Einstein, Vos Savant or even the autistic rain man ‘genius’ people like Bruno, Kripke and Wittgenstein…none of them were in the top 1% or even top 10% of income
False. Bruno is well into the top 1% financially. Marilyn Vos Savant made so much money as an investor she was able to retire super young and become a writer. Some of the greatest geniuses of all time were rich. Shakespeare’s home was nearly twelve times the average of his countrymen making him the equivalent of a muti-millionaire today.
MvS does not understand lasers or pyramidal numbers. There is an excellent archive of her columnist gaffes. People like vos Savant (hilarious name, incidentally) and Langan do not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Tao, JvN, and Einstein. In any case, we’re conflating prodigies with geniuses. As a mathematician, I can quite confidently say that Terry Tao is not the most creative and original mathematician alive. Perelman has retired to pick mushrooms in Siberia, but he’s certainly more original (likely has a higher IQ as well), and lags Tao in accomplishments only because he’s a bit kooky. The same (save being kooky) applies to Peter Scholze. I also thought it was already public knowledge that MvS’ SB score was fraudulent and truly in the 130s. Look it up if you aren’t aware. She is riding on an unvalidated test score from RKH, which seemingly fails to predict her ability to understand anything reasonably sophisticated in STEM (assuming you paid any attention to her column). Monty Hall is not a valid objection.
Bruno talking nonsense as usual. If you work as a civil servant and you pay income tax, you’re not in the top 1% by definition. Youre not even in the top 10%.
The only people that pay income tax in the entire capitalist system that also fit into the top 1% might be CEOs of very large corporations and even then, they draw most of their income from stock.
Then Bruno mentions the income from his family’s real estate portfolio…..we’re talking about self made wealth dumbass. You actually just proved my point further that despite being a 170IQ autistic rain man with permenant constipation, you draw most of your income from your family’s portfolio.
philo I said % in France not USA or elsewhere,
Here the different thresholds USA versus France as from diverse public data average I googled for people employed full time (so that’s a fraction of global population)
Top 10% salary among employed full time in France is 60k versus 165k in the USA.
top 1% is 125 k versus 825k.
with my French (high) civil servant pay only am in the French top 1%. I would be just a bit under the USA too 10%.
on top of that, I more than double my personal income with family wealth.
i get 16 weeks of paid holidays per year so my life is very good. Pumpkin knows I am often posting from different country even if I never travel for work.
on top of that I could rapidly earn 500k to 3000k because of my technical skill that has nothing to do with science. It’s is nationally recognized. I am very well published in my field. And firms would pay a lot for my service wich would make them save a lot of money.
It’s just that I like my job more because of the content, the freedom it gives me in time and self management and the prestige it conveys. I don’t have office hours and very little fixed schedules where I have to be at a place at a given time. And it’s in the center of Paris in a historical building.
but I don’t want to brag more lol
We said INCOME not salary.
The most famous economist from France is a guy named Thomas Piketty. Read his book.
Even then, his book is a crude estimate based on tax returns.
Its still the best academic study of wealth/income in mainstream academia.
Everyone in private banking and offshore tax havens knows the top 1% don’t actually pay taxes.
The reality is €125k is nowhere near enough to be in the top 1% of INCOME. Bernard Arnault’s pet dog probably has higher INCOME.
I agree that you could make more in the private sector, so could I actually.
philo I have the printed version of the big TP book you mention.
Income in 2013 in France is as for his data (in France it’s not for 1 person but for the couple, average family has 2,1 member with 1,7 working or receiving a pension, rest being kids or stay at home mums) :
10% 58 070
1% 167 090
0,1% 563 730
0,01% 2 072 470
0,001% 7 222 080 with an average of 13 639 860
it’s perfectly consistant with the data I quickly gathered and averaged.
so with my wife, we reach the 0,1%. Even without my properties, we are far above the 1% as given by Pikettty.
NB: as I was able in 1 minute to calculate the correlation for PP data at 0,45-0,50 just by letting my brain gives me the figure, I did consistently average the the data from 3 relatively reliable sources to get an appreciation of were I stand in French income distribution and contrast it with USA distribution.
then I know you said income, that’s why I added my capital revenue wich comes mainly from rent.
You said your capital income is from family properties. You inherited it. So exclude all that.
As I said Piketty is the best we have and its based on self reported tax returns which are basically bullshit to know the true figures.
Youre a member of the upper class yourself, you should know what Swiss bank account and offshore trusts are. When you include people’s income from offshore I’d be shocked if any person in the top 1% was doing it mainly from a salary.
This is the case in the USA, so France should be a bit similar. Maybe even worse since the French actually tax people, whereas the USA tax authorities are told not to tax the rich.
i wonder what india’s thought police would think about peepee’s blog.
The only reason I spent so much time poor is because my mom would not help me. She is mentally disabled for some reason. Never talked to us kids or told us what to do. But she bought us toys and because of the tests we took we were in gifted programs. Only it took a long time to get money. I spent all my time reading on the internet instead.
chris langan (part 1)
Chris Langan is just the mirror image of Bill Cosby. Just as Bill Cosby had one in a million wealth but below average SAT scores, Langan had one in a million test scores but below average income. Given the individual level correlation is 0.47, there will be quite a bit of a scatter around the line of best fit.
Chris Langan is a peculiar case. I suspect, having read CTMU and his various insipid disquisitions on random topics, that his IQ scores overpredict his functional intelligence. You know of those creativity tests that ask how many uses you can conceive of for a brick within a minute? Chris Langan would find some very creative uses, such as using the brick as an anal dildo. In much the same way, he’s taken his ability to solve contrived and constrained problems and used it to do… nothing. In fact, worse than nothing. He uses it to be a gadfly on X, brag about his intellect using scores with outdated norms on tests barely anyone recognizes, and twist his brain into a pretzel by larping as the new Kant. I’ve gotten scores in a similar range on such tests (LS60, SLSE 48, some Hoeflin tests, SRA, IVAC, etc.) and I think I’m a complete idiot while I’ve still somehow accomplished more in academia within 21 years than he has in 71. This has probably more to do with personality than IQ. And before you bring up Langan’s school experiences, I’ll note I was severely physically, mentally, and sexually abused in elementary school, and never received any acceleration until I transferred to a private school to skip eight grades in math and physics and take postgraduate courses at university. I go to a piss-poor uni for similar reasons. I hope I won’t turn into Langan, because he seems quite stupid whenever he isn’t taking tests.
Given AI and automatization at the forefront of modern technological evolution, increasing levels of virtualization, systemization, and the hope for alternate reality and transhumanism, with globalism attached, Chris Langan speaking about race and the first principle metaphysics is the best thing one could be doing if one wants to have a widespread effect on the people.
Making millions or billions in Big Tech is not really as important when you can influence millions or billions of people with your ideas, which can completely change reality and the future in a nondeterministic, generative way.
According to Puppy’s economic theory, Chris Langan had an 80IQ when he was homeless and sharing clothes with his siblings in his youth.
Magically, he gained 20 IQ points and stayed that way for 20 years working as a bouncer at a nightclub and as a ranch hand and construction worker.
Finally, Langan hit the jackpoint and woke up one day with an extra 80 IQ points when he won a gameshow prize.
Only a complete and total fucking retard believes this chain of events is plausible at any point.
According to Puppy’s economic theory, Chris Langan had an 80IQ when he was homeless and sharing clothes with his siblings in his youth.
Magically, he gained 20 IQ points and stayed that way for 20 years working as a bouncer at a nightclub and as a ranch hand and construction worker.
Finally, Langan hit the jackpoint and woke up one day with an extra 80 IQ points when he won a gameshow prize.
Are you seriously this dumb? Height and weight are positively correlated. Does that mean you’d grow a foot taller if you gained 100 lbs?
You look at the second most intelligent man in America. Rosenoir. The guy that went to high school 16 times because he loved it.
According to puppy’s quant method, because he never graduated high school, and is the bottom 10% of earners, worse than anime, he must be clinically retarded.
Puppy we can literally go through the top 20 highest IQ individuals in America, China, India, Columbia, etc line by line and get this same story.
And I haven’t mentioned the rain man type people that can’t dress themselves with ‘genius’ IQs.
According to puppy’s quant method, because he never graduated high school, and is the bottom 10% of earners, worse than anime, he must be clinically retarded.
For every Rick Rosner, there are literally MILLIONS of low IQ people with low income and education. You can find exceptions to any trend. Muggsy Bogues made the NBA despite being 5’3″ but if you had to guess the height of a random NBA player, you’d be a fool to guess below 6’6″.
You really think PP believes that? How long have you been here?
100% he believes it. If you tell Puppy about a guy you know who is a bouncer. Puppy will immediately say he is 60IQ points dumber than the top 1%.
If all I know about the person is that he’s a bouncer then the logical thing to do is estimate he has the average IQ of a bouncer. Of course if it’s a bouncer you know I should also subtract an additional 50 points. 🙂
If all I know about the person is that he’s a bouncer then the logical thing to do is estimate he has the average IQ of a bouncer. Of course if it’s a bouncer you know I should also subtract an additional 50 points. 🙂
Unban this and debate properly.
unban what?
You’ve taken a dozen experimental tests, and you accuse Langan of being unproductive and obsessed with IQ? Ok chief. He, despite his outstanding psychometric ”accomplishments,” actually has a very sober take on what comprises “functional intelligence.”
Correct. You would give an estimation of the IQ of the bouncer based on his job. But you would not mention him being 60IQ points lower than the guy with a house in the Hamptons ipso facto. You can’t extrapolate.
If all we know about 2 people is one live in the hamptons and the other is a bouncer, our best guess is that they differ by about 30 IQ points because that’s probably the average IQ difference between these groups
I don’t dispute his take on what comprises functional intelligence. When he is writing on this particular topic, he seems sane. What is not sane is the remainder of his body of work. The point of mentioning my own case was not to aggrandize myself, but to mention that one can both be insecure and (rather pathetically) pursue validation by solving experimental puzzles, while maintaining academic credibility. Lurker raises a false dichotomy. AI is certainly the greatest danger to human existence that we have ever faced. The choice we are faced with is not one between becoming an alt-right podcaster type who stirs the melting-pot and becoming Skynet’s war profiteer. The best way to deal with the issue is to acquire credentials so that others will take you seriously and engage in activism, which is precisely what I am attempting to do.
peeps, I actually agree with tp’s description of your chain of reasoning and determination of iqs, mentioned by him in this thread.
Cartouche, it’s been a while since I came across the order gadfly. Reading it immediately reminded me of that person Loaded always provoking me by criticizing hindusim.
Muslims also do this in every country after they reach a certain population. Or if they enter the country as invaders (as in medieval times).
that’s true of any group of people that come 2 another place. It’s not limited to Islam or its followers by any means!
I criticize you and your religion and you do it right back I don’t see the problem here.
you’re just being sensitive buddy.
“AI is certainly the greatest danger to human existence that we have ever faced”
Haha what nonsense. That you, Eliezer Yudkowsky?
The funniest thing is that you won’t be alive to respond as soon as I’m proven right.
The number one factor for being rich is your parents. Youre not sophisticated enough to see that so you just fell back on the really lazy study ‘indicating’ that billionaires have 50 IQ points on an average person.
You even let slip midway through that its based on the assumption that every single other important factor ‘cancels out’. LOL. What you just did is less rigorous than palm reading.
is IQ a function of class or is class a function of IQ
pill says regression to the mean is not a real thing
The former.
And Jensen admitted that RtM could be either genes or environment. Nathan Brody also showed that Jensen’s argument for RtM being a valid explanation for genetic cause for IQ is based on circular reasoning since you have to assume that the genetic hypothesis is true. (Seems like logic really wasn’t Jensen’s strong point.)
Here’s the reference. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B978008043793450057X)
(This book is also where Brand et al’s failure in refuting Berka and Nash is. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/12/29/a-critical-examination-of-responses-to-berkas-1983-and-nashs-1990-philosophical-inquiries-on-mental-measurement-from-brand-et-al-2003/)
RaceRealist is bullshiting again.
Nowhere in his references does it show class makes kids always have low IQ in low social economic environments. Nowhere does his references show that class makes kids with high socioeconomic in status environments always have high IQ.
I was poor and my IQ was 125 when 12 years old.
Many rich people have kids with sub 100 IQs.
That is what regression to the mean actually means.
And regression to the mean also means that as adults people with high IQs make more lifetime money than the class they were born into and low IQ people make less lifetime money than that class they were born into. When all factors hold constant.
How am I bullshitting? The paragraphs were separated for a reason. The issue is that without exposure to the test items and the structure of the test, one can’t score high. IQ tests are culture-bound and tests of a certain kind of knowledge—there’s no such thing as a culture-free IQ test (you can see Cole 2002 and his West African Binet argument). Regression to the mean is a statistical concept, not anything “genetic.” And I showed that Jensen—of course—used circular reasoning. And RtM isn’t a ubiquitous and it doesn’t always continue across occasions. You can check out Brody and then these two references about RtM.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232603000_Regression_toward_the_mean_and_the_study_of_change
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/3
Also
sure enough health is wealth and all other things are irrelevant.
I never said all billionaires average anywhere near IQ 150. Only the self-made centibillionaires. Specifically, the only 4 self-made people alive to ever reach #1 on the Forbes 400:
Gates IQ 170
Buffet IQ 146
Bezos IQ 146
Musk IQ i42
Average IQ 151.
Of course Gates is suck a freak of nature he blows the bell curve & makes even other centibillionaires look dumb. In fact had he not sold his shares of Microsoft, he’d have been the World’s first trillionaire.
Absolutely a 170-IQ thing to do, selling shares in the company you gave everything to promote. Assuming any kind of motivation (selfish or philanthropic), that was quite a stupid move on his part. Intelligent people do plenty of stupid things, but I’m inclined to mention that the copy of the biography Wikipedia cites for his claimed 1590 does not actually include it. I’m not saying it isn’t true, but there is reasonable doubt. My uncle had a perfect 1600 on the old SAT, which wound up being mentioned in a newspaper. I have scoured archived scans and been completely unable to find anything of that nature for Bill Gates.
Becoming the richest person in the World for 25 years is a 170 IQ achievement. Of course missing out the opportunity to become a trillionaire was pretty dumb but the fact that his shares of Microsoft even became worth a trillion further underscores his 170.
The 1590 SAT can be traced to USA TODAY article where several other famous SATs were listed (some of them questionable) but where it originally comes from, I’m not sure. I’ve heard for decades that he scored 800 on the math section but there are conflicting reports on the verbal. His biography says low 700s but does not give a precise score. Gates himself said he scored 790 but then took it again and scored better which raises even more questions.
However he also scored in the top ten in the nation on an 8th grade math test so if you consider that an IQ test, it would also independently equate to about 170.
I believe that Gates is more likely than not 165+. The SAT score specifically is suspect. If the sarcasm in my initial comment wasn’t sufficiently palpable, I apologize. I am aware of no primary source for the 1590. My personal guess is 800 math and low 700s V as a final score, considering that his own claim of retaking after scoring 790 conflicts with the best independent source we have.
So high IQ is related to high achievement. High achievement means high IQ, since of someone has high achievement then they must have high IQ. IQ is related to achievement so high achievement means high IQ. Nice circular reasoning.
RR, you’re right sometimes, but the reasoning isn’t circular here. Correlations are symmetric in their arguments. From IQ we can predict achievement, and from achievement we can predict IQ. Knowing one we can regress the other against it to obtain a maximum likelihood estimate. This argument is worse than useless. It proves you don’t understand elementary probability. PP’s (somewhat flawed) estimates for upper-crust centibillionaires absolutely use real test data. The flaw is in generalizing to a hypothetical pool of such individuals, because our sample size is too small. The flaw is not in the symmetry of correlations.
The flaw is in generalizing to a hypothetical pool of such individuals, because our sample size is too small.
The sample size can’t really be too small since it includes every single living person in the population of living self-made people who topped the Forbes 400, but I suppose giving this tiny population equal weight to much bigger populations lower on the curve skews the line of best fit. Skeptics can redo the analysis with such extremes omitted but given that the line fits the less extreme data perfectly, I doubt much will change.
“From IQ we can predict achievement, and from achievement we can predict IQ.”
Got a reference?
Assumption: high achievement implies high IQ and high IQ implies high achievement, that’s circular since it relies on the premise to support the conclusion. It’s just flawed reasoning.
Me, when I don’t know what a correlation is.
RR: “High Social class implies High IQ and High IQ implies High social class, that’s circular!”
” In fact had he not sold his shares of Microsoft, he’d have been the World’s first trillionaire.”
That’s what he gets for listening to Warren Buffet’s dumbass.
Muagbe: “But muh value investing!!!”
Diversification is fake and gay. Go all in on Bitcoin.
PP post this one not the other.
It’s a truism that one needs to be exposed to the content of the test in order to score well on it. If one has never seen a matrix item they won’t score as well as one that has. This was studied in the Tsimane (Tsimane who went to school scored 73 percent correct while the unschooled Tsimane scored 31 percent correct) and in Mali and Sudan.
Click to access DrameFerguson.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323398838_The_Raven%27s_test_performance_of_South_Sudanese_samples_A_validation_of_criticisms_of_the_utility_of_Raven%27s_among_Sub-Saharan_Africans
Bill Gates listened to jews not Buffet. Buffet never gave his own money to Africa like Gates. Gates actually has made the situation in the world incredibly dangerous by tripling the number of blacks. Not least to the existing blacks in Africa.
Gates is a genius who has the social intelligence of a teenager. He literally was asking Jeffrey Epstein for marriage advice even though the guy was a convicted paedophile.
Buffet never gave his own money to Africa like Gates
What are you talking about? Buffet gave tens of billions to the Gates foundation.
No, warren buffet is the one who gave Bill the idea to diversify his portfolio.
Did Bill know that a Jeff was a pedophile? Moreover, being a pedo doesn’t necessarily mean you’d have bad marriage advice.
melo’s IQ is so low he doesn’t know that buffett is against diversification and has half his portfolio in one company.
melo’s IQ is so low he doesn’t know the difference between value investing and diversification.
all investing is value investing. by definition. melo’s IQ is so low he doesn’t know the difference between speculation and investing. the former is eusocial. the latter is antisocial.
melo wants to own a bucket shop when he grows up.
sad.
speculating = evil
investing = good
Moreover, being a pedo doesn’t necessarily mean you’d have bad marriage advice.
^^^SATANISM^^^
“Moreover, being a pedo doesn’t necessarily mean you’d have bad marriage advice.”
If the marriage was to a child.
Skeptics can redo the analysis with such extremes omitted but given that the line fits the less extreme data perfectly, I doubt much will change.
I don’t disagree in broad strokes with your conclusion here. The sample selection for the group of wealthiest individuals will necessarily be the fairest, because we have test data for virtually all of them. On the other hand, people who are slightly below this level will tend to show self-selection in reporting scores. The point was that a small group of elites may demonstrate what it takes to be an elite without demonstrating a full-range correlation. The most egregious flaw is using a two-point estimate for the 131. Even if Cosby and Gates represent respectively the dumbest and smartest people in this category, the average of this tail of the distribution shouldn’t be the midpoint of those two numbers. We also have to avoid Simpson’s paradox by lumping wealth into bands. Ideally, we could look at a log-plot of wealth against IQ above some sufficiently high cutoff for the former.
The sample selection for the group of wealthiest individuals will necessarily be the fairest, because we have test data for virtually all of them.
Yes we literally know the reported scores of every self-made person alive to ever hold the title “Richest person in America”. This is the only time in history that has ever happened.
The most egregious flaw is using a two-point estimate for the 131. Even if Cosby and Gates represent respectively the dumbest and smartest people in this category, the average of this tail of the distribution shouldn’t be the midpoint of those two numbers.
Since the bell curve is symmetrical, I’d expect averaging the two extremes of a large group to give a good estimate for the average of the group as a whole, at least in cases where’s there’s no reason to expect either extreme to be an outlier. My intuition could be wrong about this though.
The trouble here is that you’re cutting off most of the wealth distribution when you only consider the extreme right tail. A priori, there’s no reason to assume that the distribution of IQ within this group is Gaussian, and the fact that the two are positively correlated shows that it shouldn’t be (for example, consider the edge case of two Gaussian distributions with a 1.0 correlation — there the right tails match each other and the true average is below the mean of the highest and lowest points within that tail).
I never thought of it that way before. Interesting point.
This is actually a very interesting problem in statistical inference. Let’s assume we know the following information:
I) The distribution of income in the desired range.
II) The distribution of IQ in the general population.
III) The highest and lowest IQ in the desired range.
There is a certain partial differential equation (specifically a continuity equation) that we can solve to find geodesics in Wasserstein space connecting probability distributions, where we treat one as the pushforward of the other. The idea here is that if you add two distributions together with different “weights,” the resulting linear combination will have undesirable characteristics of both and not represent what happens in cases like this. Each point on this geodesic represents a distribution “between” the endpoint distributions, according to some measure of the “cost” of rearranging them. Let’s say you pick a cost function that accurately represents the effects of selecting for income from the IQ distribution. The endpoints of the geodesic will be a Gaussian (what we expect if the two are uncorrelated) and the distribution of income itself (what we expect if they’re perfectly correlated). Take a path integral of the distributions weighted by the probability of both the highest and lowest scores appearing in the dataset over this curve. The resulting distribution will be an estimate of the true IQ distribution, and you can compute an expected value for the mean based on it. You can also compute error bound based on the number of scores you actually know. If the choice of cost functions isn’t clear, you can repeat the weighting and averaging process over a family of cost functions.
Note: I am probably overcomplicating this because I am a probability theorist by training, not a statistician. This method works, but there’s probably a simpler model that already exists and is particular to this type of sampling.
Final note: we obtain a PDE in the case of smoothed distributions (which belong to an infinite-dimensional function space). For discrete distributions, it should be a difference equation rather than a differential equation (which you can solve with linear algebra instead).
Cartouche’s technique is way too complicated and requires more data. Basically you stick with pg 1 of the statistics textbook. A sample size of 4 is too small the make an inference that every time a person becomes the richest person in america, he will usually have a 140 IQ plus. You can say the probability is there, but you can’t make it iron clad.
I know this because I can create historical data outside Forbes and have a rough idea of who the richest people were going back 100 years and their biographies.
I guarantee Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Rockefeller jnr, Astor and so on weren’t 5 SDs above the average of their day. But Puppy may argue the ‘game’ has become more complex and the IQ requirement is higher and actually I would accept that.
But Puppy may argue the ‘game’ has become more complex and the IQ requirement is higher and actually I would accept that.
Well that’s precisely the thesis of THE BELL CURVE. Since the 1950s, the U.S. has become so complex the elites and the high IQ people have merged into a single overclass that has nothing in common with the masses they rule over.
Well then the Bell Curve is retarded because 50% of the elites are inherited wealth. Maybe more. And you don’t need a high IQ to inherit wealth and income. You yourself argue more than I do that kids of high IQ people regress to the mean based on stat theory. I’m open to the idea that there is some sort of eugenics going on, in particular with ashkenazim.
Why are you so bullish on inherited money? The way new technologies & globalism are generating unprecedented levels of new wealth, don’t you think a lot of old money gets left behind, especially as it gets divided among more and more heirs each generation?
“Since the 1950s, the U.S. has become so complex the elites and the high IQ people have merged into a single overclass that has nothing in common with the masses they rule over.”
Murray’s claim that we’re becoming more genetically stratified was tested and didn’t pass muster.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5679002/
peepee must have some horrendous physical disability.
i think she’s a blob in a wheelchair.
Pill is right that my suggestion is essentially still black sorcery. There’s only so much you can squeeze from two datapoints, but this is the best way to squeeze it. Basically useless anyway. The main point is that the average is almost surely not 131 (and based on reasonable assumptions, probably lower).
If we know that the 4 living self-made people to ever top the Forbes 400 average 151, seems odd that you would think 131 is too high for the self-made Forbes 400 as a whole, unless you think the IQ-money correlation greatly increases above the one in a million level of self-made wealth or maybe you think it’s just a fluke that those 4 are so high.
unless you think the IQ-money correlation greatly increases above the one in a million level of self-made wealth
This is my hypothesis. Even the self-made constituents of the 400 are heterogeneous in their work. Three of the top four you’ve mentioned are all tech moguls who spearheaded the initial projects that made them so rich, while one is amongst the greatest living investors/market analysts. My belief that the average is below 131 does not come from this assumption, but rather what I mentioned above about how the two being positively correlated implies a bottom-heavy distribution. The hypothesis follows this as a possible explanation.
Yes it is interesting that 100% of the four living self-made people to ever top the Forbes 400 are in STEM if you include investing as STEM which you should since it’s math. The percentage of STEM for all self-made Forbes 400 is much lower. Jonathan Wai also noted that the percentage who attended elite schools is higher at the top of the list. Also, the few blacks who have ever made the list have almost all been at or near the bottom.
Jonathan Wai’s research suggests that (in academia) IQ does not exhibit thresholding or diminishing returns, but quite the opposite. The correlation between IQ and academic success increases as either the predictor or target variable’s cutoff does. It should be similar here.
Well that’s precisely the thesis of THE BELL CURVE. Since the 1950s, the U.S. has become so complex the elites and the high IQ people have merged into a single overclass that has nothing in common with the masses they rule over.
The very richest contemporary individuals have nearly all derived their wealth from occupations that place a greater demand on IQ. The lower the cutoff goes, the more people there are who attain comparable levels of wealth through other means.
I don’t expect the difference to be tremendous, anyway. 125 would be my middle-of-the-road estimate, could be slightly higher.
The problem with going too low is you’re saying there’s not much IQ difference between the top 4% of household wealth and the top one in a million self-made wealth.
Of course, it could also be above 131. If Wai is correct and the point where the correlation shows a jump lies towards the bottom of the 400, then the distribution will not actually be a mixture of normal and tailed, but instead we’d see people like Cosby as low outliers with small impact on the mean.
The fact that Cosby was the only black and only performer on the list in 1994 suggests he was an outlier. But Gates was also arguably an outlier in the sense that he’s an extreme nerd which was rare for super rich people in 1994. Steve Jobs made his wealth off nerds but was not a nerd himself.
I’m simply following the data. In the grand scheme of IQ, 120ish vs 130ish is not a gigantic gap to begin with. But cf. above about the possibility the error is in the other direction. We simply need more information to draw strong conclusions. I estimate 125 if both Cosby and Gates are representative. If Cosby is an outlier (which is more likely than Gates being an outlier), then the true value is likely higher than 131. I don’t have an agenda here to prove one specific thing.
Another interesting case is Sarah Blakey. She flunked the LSAT but Oprah liked the underwear she designed so much, she turned her into a billionaire.
“The correlation between IQ and academic success”
What’s the correlation?
This depends on how you define “academic success.”
Define it how you want then provide me a reference with the correlation.
The correlation is about 0.7 when you compare people of the same age. about 0.55 when you compare adults of all ages. Source: WAIS standardization samples
Which standardization sample? Or which handbook is that in?
Thanks. I’ll check out the reference if I can find it on libgen tonight, but you’re defining “academic success” as “education levels”? Also why are you relying on 75 year old work when Ceci’s and Ritchie and Tucker-Drob’s work shows that education increases IQ? And we also know that IQ and achievement tests are different versions of the same test.
I think I linked to the relevant references.
You did but the Google Books reference is blocked out.
Because if we define it as GPA, then we know that correlation between GPA-job performance correlation 5 or more years after graduation is a mere 0.05. See Armstrong (2011), “Natural Learning in Higher Education.”
The conclusions are stronger for older data, which actually supports the thesis due to grade inflation. Of course, you’re making a specious and indirect argument here. We know the data on IQ and academic success (measured by GPA, undergraduate program ranking, graduate program ranking, years of education, etc.) and the data on IQ and job performance. You need to square correlation coefficients to obtain shared variance. I don’t completely trust your citation of Armstrong as I’ve seen much higher figures (some of which may have reduced the effects of grade inflation), but even if correct it’s perfectly plausible for A and B to correlate strongly, A and C to correlate strongly, and B and C to correlate weakly if the shared variance between A and B isn’t the same as between B and C. To this end, education is partially a useful proxy because it predicts IQ.
The main problem with his data is they don’t correct for range restriction. Most jobs and most universities select from a narrow range of the IQ curve so the correlation of performance in either with IQ is quite low, let alone the correlation with each other.
Typo, that should say “if the shared variance between A and B isn’t the same as between A and C.”
“The conclusions are stronger for older data”
Go ahead and provide the references.
“education is partially a useful proxy because it predicts IQ.”
“Predicts” as in “correlates with”, right? It’s patently true that education increases IQ and that for example the IQ-income relationship is due to family background and schooling, not IQ.
Yeah. Separate proportions of variance are why results such as this are possible, range restriction is why they actually happen.
Also, the correlation coefficient may not sufficiently express the relationship between IQ and grades and job performance because below a certain IQ, you just can’t do the job or understand the class at all so the relationship may not be linear.
Sometimes I can’t even conceive how deranged a person could be to pretend IQ doesn’t correlate with educational achievement just to pretend blacks are the exact same as whites. What the hell is going on RR? You need to sit down and have some tea and just reflect on what an ass you would make of yourself even to a regular person on the street to say something weird like that.
LOL! You’re arguing the same thing. You even cited the low education of Langan & Rosner to make your point
Even correcting for range restriction only brought the correlation up to .11.
The issue is that Richardson and Norgate 2015 argued that the correlation between job performance and IQ were inflated and probably in the .2s. Then Sackett et al confirmed this, showing its 0.23. Then another paper vindicated Sackett et al’s claims while also showing that there was no support for the claim that IQ predicts better in so-called “higher complexity jobs.” References below.
The validity of general cognitive ability predicting job-specific performance is stable across different levels of job experience.
A reply to commentaries on “Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors”
Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors
Does IQ Really Predict Job Performance?”
So RR would you let someone with an IQ below 80 perform surgery on your baby?
Is the someone an MD? Did they go through medical school and residency? Did they complete a speciality fellowship? How is this relevant to what I said?
You wont find virtually any MDs with a valid IQ score under 80 which proves IQ predicts academic achievement.
I am recusing myself from this argument because I understand that RR will attempt to pick apart any reference I cite. He has a very clear agenda that precedes rational analysis and, like the debate on evolutionary progressivism, this is a waste of my time. RR himself has claimed that older data conflicts more with his view. I was addressing this. PP provided exactly one of the references I would’ve for the initial question (that of correlation, not change over time). My job is pretty much done here. There isn’t much of a point in wasting breath on people whose conclusions precede their analyses.
“You wont find virtually any MDs with a valid IQ score under 80 which proves IQ predicts academic achievement.”
Remember the Mcmanus papers? In any case, how does what you said respond to the argument I made and the references to back it? I thought what you said was a hypothetical. And Sackett used to believe the claims of IO psychologists (a 2001 paper) and then changed his view… Because hunter and Schmidt’s correlations were highly inflated as Richardson and Norgate showed.
“I am recusing myself from this argument because I understand that RR will attempt to pick apart any reference I cite.”
🏃
And yes the “much older data” does conflict with the view, since the correlations were highly inflated. Do you accept the newer studies that show the correlation is way lower than previously thought? Why or why not?
RR I’ve already responded to your claims about IQ and job performance.
Why do you keep repeating the same arguments as if no one has ever responded to them? Does every day have to be groundhog day?
Yea I remember that. Your issue is that you’re (curiously…) assuming that the correlation is exactly where the inflated Hunter and Schmidt correlation is. (And you agreed with my argument on range restriction.) And Sackett found a 0.16 observed validity and then corrected for range restriction and found the 0.23 value.
Chuck and Herrnstein made the claims—based on Hunter and Schmidt—that “IQ becomes more important as the job gets intellectually tougher” (p 51), “An IQ score is a better predictor of job productivity than a job interview, reference checks, or college transcript” (p 64), and “the test score is a better predictor of job performance than any other single measure” (p 81). We can see today in 2024 that these claims are obviously false. By the way, the SNP heritability of IQ is 0.04. And we—again, as found out last year—know that effect sizes on complex traits are basically identical between ancestry groups. As the kids are saying today “It’s Joever.”
Buffet himself literally said the same thing I did. ‘The number 1 factor for my wealth is my genes and being born in the right time in the right place’ - meaning his parents not his IQ. Puppy interpreted that to mean IQ of course because he hasn’t read Buffet’s writings. Buffet clearly believes wealth is a function of class.
he meant his innate ability was useless for most of human history.
if he said that. find the quote. please.
Buffet says IQ isn’t important in finance. I think hes being humble, but mostly he says it was very important to be born upper class in 1950s america.
Literally every investor in his early partnership was a family friend of his politician dad.
mossad isn’t sending its best.
he said there’s a threshold IQ past which more IQ points have no effect.
This is the problem with libertarians. Really simplistic, garbage socially inept and retarded ‘thinking’. If autists spent more time reading about the rich rather than doing equations matching this and that data point to being rich, they might actually get rich.
The funny thing is that I used to be a right-libertarian until I studied more economics. Marx was actually right (although his methods of demonstration sucked), and I can prove it using ergodic theory with a few assumptions about the market. He was also wrong about the core contradiction of capitalism because he assumed a labor theory of value. The core contradiction relates to globalization of labor, homogenization of raw capital, and centralization of fiat wealth. Money is, as Max Stirner would say, a spook. We worship it precisely because of its ultimate exchangeability. There are two qualities to consider for commodities in this context: utility-value and exchange-value. Money has no utility-value but, in its atomic unit, can be equated with any qualitative form of utility. With a sufficient amount of money, one might obtain any form of utility-value. This leads certain people to prioritize the acquisition of money (presumably in preparation for unforeseen circumstances) over real experience, and to hoard it. Of course, this is a safeguard against the unknown. On the other hand, they’re completely delusional and neglecting what it means to be alive.
Exactly. Every single high IQ person that looks at economics knows neoliberalism is retarded and sophistry and marxism is the best approximation of reality. I don’t agree with labour theory of value either but 90% of it makes sense. Even the colonial hub and spoke theory that was seemingly only relevant under imperialism. To this day non former colonies can make the exact same product or service and have worse terms of trade.
Actually I’m wrong. Puppy would be perfect for Chicago and Forbes magazine. Neoliberals literally would salivate at the thought of proving themselves ‘genetically superior’ to poor people. Useful idiot Puppy would be the icing on the cake.
Multi-millionaires are only 1 1 8 ? nah
Nearly one in 20 U.S. households are headed by a multi-millionaires. They’re no longer exclusive enough to average above 118 IQ.
?? Where is this data from, Forbes?? LOL. You actually believe that? HAHAHAHAHAHA. So gullible.
No gullible is when that autistic “whistle blower” conned you into thinking the U.S. government had dead bodies of crashed alien pilots and you believed him so completely you called an actual intelligent person & astronomy expert autistic for doubting it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA so gullible.
Well you don’t know if the whistleblower (who was backed up by a air force colonel) is right or wrong. But I definitely know whether 5% of the US population is a multimillionaire.
You’re arguing with Bruno that you need to be super rich to be in the top 1% in France yet you can’t believe nearly 5% of U.S. households have a net worth over $3 million. Simply buying a house in the U.S. takes nearly half a million. The U.S. has more more millionaires per capita than any other country in the World.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_millionaires
all of these pipo are bi-lingual. so they must not be prole according to peepee.
these are NOT american-type homeless pipo.
affirmative action is NOT the only reason these pipo are homeless.
after 1994 ZA was also subjected to neoliberal economic reforms.
but as with so many american homeless pipo i think…
DUDE! GET THE FUCK OUTTA ZA ANY WAY YOU CAN!
look what happened to lara logan. she was uber sexy. and her accent got her to 60 Minutes. then she went totally insane.
why? she claimed she left ZA because its AA on steroids.
no one likes to leave home.
the lesson of the above for peepee is:
dose wytrash pipo is low IQ n shit.
the lesson actually is:
what matters is class NOT race.
neoliberalism = satanism
national socialism = a moment in the weltgeist…
that is hated on to no ultimate effect…
its theory of what constitutes a legitimate government and what constitutes the aims of a legitimate government…
are totally legit…
government is cosa nostra and the governed are the family.
it took germans to turn southern italian into philosophy.
there’s a political symbol in that vid.
it’s on the back of a laptop.
see it?
IQ test question:
poor pipo don’t give a shit about ideology. they just wanna stop being poor.
Jones and du Toit are child rapists.
that wife in the homeless camp looks like peter sholze.
her husband the welder was lucky.
but she lives in filth.
And the people u listed as the richest….aren’t the richest dumbass. Have u seen Putin’s house? Do you know MBS owns a country with the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world??
pill believes putin inherited his money?
pill believes putin is self made but is not intelligent?
what a jackass pill is.
My analysis was confined to Americans
It’s important to consider the difference between wealth and status. MBS is neither self-made in terms of status nor wealth. Putin is self-made in terms of status but not wealth. I would assume that political standing has less to do with IQ (assuming both are self-made) than net worth when that net worth precedes political influence.
Also when you’re a dictator, it’s very hard to distinguish what assets you own and what assets the country owns so the precise wealth of Putin types is very hard to estimate.
Wealth and power is basically the same thing in most countries outside of the west. In the west, under neoliberalism…its the same thing. The richest man, is the most powerful man. Ergo, the most powerful man, is the richest man.
You can set up a corporation and get power. Or you can get power and take over a corporation.
Putin and MBS basically use violence to get rich. This is the way the world works in non autistic economic models.
So Kim Kardashian has more power than any President in U.S. history?
Yes, but the difference is in which one precedes the other. Intelligence is related to wealth after accounting for parental SES because it enables one to exploit opportunities when they arise (or to create them). Demagoguery is reliant on factors that correlate less with IQ in a secular sense (what some might call “social intelligence”). If one succeeds as a demagogue, more opportunities for wealth-generation present themselves and less cognitive ability is necessary to exploit them. For similar reasons to why generational wealth has limited predictive power for IQ (it predicts parental IQ, which regresses to the mean), wealth that follows status should show a lower correlation to IQ than self-made wealth that precedes status.
If you take a list of the richest people in indonesia, eygpt, pakistan, and basically 150 other third world countries, you are basically talking about using violence and corruption.
Nothing even to do with making speeches or charming people. Its all about the violence baby!
I agree Putin and MBS can’t do partial differential equations like you or Gates or Bezos can. The point was that simply making income or wealth a predictor of IQ is not enough. You need to know how exactly the person got the income and wealth and their biography. You can’t make lazy assumptions like Puppy.
Also, fun fact there are many billionaires in the West that got wealthy through violence and corruption and dress themselves up in public as ‘businessmen’.
What I’m describing is a rough proxy for the granularity of finely examining the modalities of success. Success that comes from g-loaded fields is g-loaded. Success in most fields is g-loaded, but we expect someone like Jim Simons to be smarter than someone like Mansa Musa. So yes, you’re correct to an extent.
People who need references all the time are people without common sense and or people who are bullshitting you to distract you from the core truth.
Why should one accept a claim that needs a reference? Blindly accepting a claim is ridiculous. And then when someone asks for a reference, seeing them squirm is even better.
It’s true, we’re all terrified when we see the side manbun in our notifications
Haha good one.
Who the fuck needs a reference that water is wet? God Damn
People who are dishonest, that is who.
I am always right, retard et al.
AK, you said your house was most of your net worth. However, you didn’t mention any sticks used when measuring. Therefore, I question the objective basis of your statement. After all, units cannot be established if a length of wood that has fallen from a tree is not used as a visible reference point.
Even though we agree on the value of a dollar, and your house price is as stable as any other house price, that is simply adding elements in a set, so we can’t say the magnitude of the cost of your house is greater than the magnitude of the present cost of one bottle of semaglutide.
In fact, I don’t even know what words mean unless they are all directly attached to cylindrical cuts of wood. And given all of my understanding of my words, and my perceptions of that wood is all mental, my words have no objective basis. In fact, everything I understand about wood is a mental phenomena. Understanding is a mental phenomena. Understanding the word “understanding” and it’s meaning is mental.
But see, as a top fitness trainer and evader of reparations, I know that if I see a stick, it’s really there, and there’s no way I can deny it. That’s my immediate experience. That beats any apriori argument anyone can offer about P and M sharing structure. P is there! I can see it. The manbun pulls my eyes open even wider, and there is no way to deny it and no need to question anything prior or necessary.
Conclusion: Sticks are the most real and objective thing and the only measurable thing. QED.
You need equivalent coverage of these different brackets in order to establish comparable IQ estimates — ideally they should be from the same time period, as the changing nature of work necessarily alters pressures on workers. It’s equally possible that Warren took the Slosson (and important to remember that ratio distributions are dependent on item content, whereas smoothed Gaussians are independent). I don’t doubt the approximate ranges, I question the false precision.
Random comment (because I’m drunk as always): if anyone knows Andreas Gunnarsson or has his contact information, I’d like to send him an email about submitting answers for Foritensum. The hosting website has been down for 15 years, so it’s a long shot, but I spent just a few hours on it and think I’ve already surpassed the previous maximum score.
I am not that good at gauging IQ because I am not good at researching people’s accomplishments. I only know so few facts about people.
It should be possible though because hard problems require you to hold many variables at once and cut-offs exist when a person reaches a certain limit under the constraint posed to them. This means what a person can do usually shows up early vs what they continue to do later in life.
Sam Altman – head of open a.i. confirmed score of 140
Demis Hassabis – head of deepmind, built a computer game in his teens (said to be above 200 iq) and researched the hippocampus in college.
Terence Tao – once said he was looking into the probability a cubic foot of water explodes just by chance (said to be above 200)
Benoit Desjardins – head of the mega iq society
Ray Kurzweil – built a real computer at age 17 in the 1960s that composed music.
Evangelos Katsioulis – was recorded by the World Genius Directory as having an IQ of 198
Katsioulis is not 198 or 190. All of his scores use outdated norms. Most of them are around 170 with the most recent norm reports.
Incidentally, although I don’t think this is an accurate representation of his overall IQ, he did obtain a score of 12/30 on SLSE II and similar on SLSE I (150ish).
I’ve looked into Tao’s scores on a variety of different measures and would assume his FSIQ is 170ish with higher quant. Kurzweil does not seem 180. I hesitate to make any estimate above 160 for any person who’s neither on record having obtained such a result or an era-defining genius.
I have some passing familiarity with Desjardins as we are in some of the same IQ societies. That’s the number I’m least skeptical of amongst these. Tao should be higher, Kurzweil and Katsioulis lower. I have no idea why you’d ever think Kurzweil is smarter than Tao (who was truly a generational talent in math, both in youth and as an adult).
Above 150 I have problems judging IQ.
I was thinking though that working memory is important.
So if you say all these people (not sam altman) ranges at 170 that gives me a clue.
On the curve only about 800 or so people would be above 180. but that may not be the true distribution.
I came up with this:
1/x = 2^[(IQ / 100)^5]
pumpkin suggested by a promethean that a person can learn twice as fast as someone 5 points lower in IQ.
working memory begins at 7 items at 100.
so I did this:
IQ = ([((((x – 7)*5)/100)+1] * ([(x – 7)^3 * (x)^2] / (x)^4)) * 100) + 100
4.2454x = 0
7x = 100
12x = 208
entropy log2 (12) combinatorics = 4,096
This would be the combinations (comparisons) a person at that level could make.
“working memory begins at 7 items at 100.”
Evidence? Evidence of a linear relationship too?
this is evidence rr cannot do research
Just use google you dummy
and who said it was linear? proof rr can’t do math.
benoit desjardins claims he is married and has 3 chirren.
odds his wife is an abo = 100%.
using rr race categories.
Proof you make baseless claims.
Go ahead and provide references for your claim that X IQ can do X working memory. (Specifically what you said at the end.) Your issue is that you said “X isn’t Y” and then you reify IQ as if it tells you anything interesting about someone. “The 170 guy once told me X… The 180 Promethean told PP Y…” Complete ridiculousness.
proof that rr makes baseless claims!
“impressive” = i can’t even imagine being that smart
actually i can.
as john holmes said:
maybe being smart is a thing hassabis has been obsessed with from adolescence.
he doesn’t just show up at the world master champion championship!
rr’s homosexuality is sad.
rr basically does not know that the standard number of items a person can hold in memory is 7
if half the population is above 7 items and half is below 7 items that makes 7 the standard of 100 IQ
and in that case it is true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two
Your “corrections” are in the opposite direction of reasonability. My own observations and available test data show that the more g-loaded an ability is the closer its distribution is to normal. Digit span does not exactly have a normal distribution. Sure, in the average range it’s quite close. But unlike reasoning, there seem to be significant departures in the tails. I have a forward digit span of 13, backwards and sequenced of 12. I know people who can exceed this. Do you intend to tell me I’m above 200 WMI? I’m not.
Why don’t you cite actual research showing that and not Wikipedia? Is it because you don’t read actual research and only read Wikipedia?
I’d also feel inclined to point out that most of the top-scorers on experimental tests are somewhat fraudulent in their claims. If you have an IQ of 160 and take sufficiently many tests with small sample sizes, you’re bound to get an outlier result or two. Case in point: Heinrich Siemens. On most tests his scores are estimated between 4 and 5 SDs. He took one test from Paul Cooijmans that (with an unvalidated early norm) yielded a score of 195, and ran with it. When he first began taking these tests, he often scored in the high 150s (look at archived Prousalis contests).
Of course, that’s more relevant to EK but doesn’t paint a full picture. A name you’ll frequently hear in the high-range testing sphere is Fengzhi Wu. Fengzhi Wu claims world records on several tests. The only tests Fengzhi Wu has ever taken are known to be extensively compromised. One of his claims (on SLSE 48) was wiped from the internet as soon as evidence emerged that he had cheated on the test. In interviews, he makes a number of interesting claims such as having “reinvented a better fork” and holding 30+ US patents. The problem is, patent registries are public. Exactly one US patent has ever been issued to a man named Fengzhi Wu, but that’s a different person. That Fengzhi Wu lives in California and is significantly older.
Another name you’ll hear is that of Luca Fiorani. Allegedly, he scored 24/30 on SLSE II. He is on record having begged another person via text to solve items for him (not on SLSE II), and ik from a friend of mine that he purchased answers from a Chinese team that collaborated on solving the test and submitted three attempts. Luca offered to send these answers to that source of mine.
The item design of a lot of those tests seems trash at face value. Thoughts on Kevin Langdon’s LAIT? Odd that such a high-ceiling test is multiple-choice, but the questions seem to be measuring something worthwhile, whereas a lot of these boutique tests are gauging, “is this person autistic?”
I’m somewhat disappointed in PP’s belief that certain high-range tests (such as those of Hoeflin) yield interpretable results. If we place stock in tests like that, then my IQ is 180. My IQ is not 180. I might be pretty smart, but not that smart. The samples are too small and self-selected to draw strong conclusions from.
Cringe. You’re just assuming IQ is causal and that since one has high accomplishment that one must have high IQ and the IQ is driving the accomplishment. It’s just test-taking skills and these are learned. High IQ means you’re good at taking tests and we’re exposed to the content of the test—nothing more.
I doubt race realist could build a computer or make a video game as a kid. He would lack to intelligence to understand what to do.
Again race realist is not interested in understanding intelligence. All he does is bullshit in the comment section, He cannot be reasoned with in that regard.
The assumption is always “he has high achievement so he must have high IQ.” You’re interested in conflating IQ with intelligence, even when all psychometric theories of intelligence fail.
I tried once to tell you rr IQ tests and intelligence were not the same things but you ignored what I said because you are dishonest. Once more: being able to do more equates to having more intelligence (Race realist will ignore this again because of his dishonesty).
“Does more” pertaining to what? Do you agree or disagree that psychometric theories fail?
In terms of working memory “more” refers to what you can mentally hold and manipulate.
Example would be thinking about the requirements of designing something. Some people can think of 10 parts of the design at the same time well others can think of 20 parts of the design at the same time.
People who can hold more in memory will be able to think of all the parts of a huge design better than people who can only think of a few parts of the design at once.
This is not just about memorizing words.
Getting everything to work together and all the interactions requires knowing spatial relations as well.
Solving a problem means you understand all the requirements and all the relationships between them. Some problems have more requirements and so anyone who can know all of the relationships at the same time will be able to find solutions faster because they can combine more of them together.
More relationships in working memory = more combinations for solutions to the requirements
Do you have a reference for those claims? Jaeggi et al found a dose-dependent relationship on n-back training and performance on tests like the Raven. They state that “little knowledge is available about the cognitive processes that mediate performance in this task and consequentially, about the processes underlying n-back training that eventually promote transfer to Gf.”
Click to access 2010_4.pdf
There’s also the fact that working memory—and a slew of other factors—didn’t predict academic performance.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-017-0014-5
irrelevant rr dishonesty again.
rr cannot discuss what intelligence actual is.
I was referring to working memory not IQ tests.
Again rr cannot be reasoned with.
No it’s very relevant. You just didn’t read it.
rr sophistry
intelligence = putting thing together mentally
rr cannot accept that some people have more than others
Zzz
I think everyone in the comment section can agree, even the fitness trainer RR, that IQ tests claiming to test people above 160 are experimental and not to be relied on. And that IQ tests for kids or animals are bullshit and not to be relied on.
This isn’t to doubt that some attempts are more thoughtful than others.
“even the fitness trainer RR” who probably makes more money than most people here. I’m also the most critical of IQ tests here, so for you to say that is… Something.
Stop lying. No fitness trainer in human history makes more than a white collar worker unless he’s doing for celebrities or the very upper class.
cartouche is an autistic imbecile who must be banned.
what were desjardin’s MCATs? the MCAT, like the GRE, is used by canuckistani unis too!
hassabis is the only guy on that list who’s actually impressive. he’s succeeded irl and not-irl: Hassabis is a five-times winner of the all-round world board games championship (the Pentamind), and an expert player of many games including
yet he’s only 50% genetically superior. sad. and the other half is cypriot. sad.
johnholmes_at_jh_dot_com
I’d also feel inclined…
popipo’s idea of a popipo’s idea of a rich pipo is trump.
sad.
no! trump is a typical 2d gen rich pipo.
From far and wide, O Canada! We stand on guard for thee!
I’m being a dumbass. Desjardins is Quebecois.
Car ton bras sait porter l’epee.
Il sait porter la croix!
Ton histoire est une epopee,
des plus brilliants exploits.
When Ireland won independence from Britain after a war in 1921. The Irish government seized all the land back from British aristocrats for a nominal sum agreed in the Anglo Irish Treaty.
If the Irish government hadn’t of socialised the land, basically 99% of the land in Ireland would still to this day be owned by the British aristocracy and there would still be slums and 50% of the economy would be agriculture or subsistence farming. Even with mercantalist trade policy and american offshoring.
If you have a basic knowledge of history, you understand why being a libertarian is mentally retarded and childish. There’s simply no way for Irish peasants to get land or housing without socialism.
Now you know why Im a socialist.
hadn’t of = hadn’t’ve
^^^what happens when your masters is from singapore^^^
Well thats the way we say it in Ireland. The Queens english is…for english people.
pill is english
no pill, you believe the queen is supposed to have all the money.
she is just not the government you support.
if the Irish government took your land and shit like in china and russia you’d be singing a different toon.
are you protestant or a catholic, pill?
One of those peasents had a grandchild. And that was me. And thankfully no slum or malnutrition and stunting and polio and working on a fucking farm all my life.
If you have basic historical knowledge, its impossible to be a libertarian. I imagine 99% of historians are not libertarians.
If you promote violence as a way to get what you want, that makes you a bad person pill. It is not of historical knowledge it is about ethics which you have non of.
You can reconcile a fundamental belief in pacifism with the use of violence if you consider inaction to be a form of action. Violence is justifiable to prevent greater violence from transpiring. Likewise, philosophical libertarianism doesn’t necessarily imply political libertarianism. All rights must be balanced. For instance, a person who truly believes in individual freedom would be a hypocrite to condone murder. It is hypocritical to defend an economic system that impedes human flourishing and self-actualization.
pill uses the term “libertain” to denote “autism”.
because pill denotes anything he dislikes as “autism”
so it is not about what the term libertarian actually means or neoliberal or autism, it is about pill being right all the time. bigots don’t care whether what you say is right or wrong, they only care that they are right and you are wrong.
no matter what I actually believe pill calls it autism
I could say the exact same things as pill and he would say i have autism, because he already decided it as such.
dumb fucker pill just needs to be right above all else
No you went on a rant about taxing the rich and saying that the government wastes the money and Elon needs more strippers and uppers and butlers. You said that in the last thread.
I’m just bracing myself for when you inevitably use the term ‘job creator’.
Elon needs an extended vacation in St. Helena.
Pill believes the queen should have all the money because she is in charge of the government and will do the right things with it.
For me the person with the worst general knowledge in the comment section is Puppy. Puppy doesn’t even know who MBS was until I mentioned it. I don’t know what the fuck puppy reads or watches but about 99% is for gay men.
For me the person with the worst general knowledge in the comment section is Puppy.
LOL!
Are you going to unban my explanation for why inherited wealth is AT LEAST 50% of the elite? Or are you going to keep pretending every single person on the Forbes list is a genius, even Oprah and Bill Cosby and Michael Jordan.
Even Oprah?
ESPECIALLY Oprah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PP is a believer in the attack of the nerds that autistic people can somehow change the course of nature and avail 2 victory.
sadly nature can’t be beat and autistic people whether it’s him included or not will always fail and regress 2 the mean.
To answer your question Kim Kardashian would be more powerful than most politicians if she used her money and influence in a jewish way. But right now, no shes not powerful.
And Anime and Puppy never denied being a libertarian. They openly espouse those points of view in their comments. Just labelling it is merely the next step.
I’m not really a libertarian. I’ve always argued that capital gains & inheritance should be taxed as much as employment income, that minimum wage should be a function of company size, and that affirmative action served a useful purpose at first.
Oh that right isn’t it! You conveniently throw Ayn Rand out the window when it comes to beloved blacky!! Reperachuns hahaha.
if canada made aa illegal peepee would be homeless the next day.
sad.
LOL! If I grew up like Chris Langan did, I’d be homeless. I had a lot of support.
I had a lot of support. = affirmative action
Oh I had tons and tons of affirmative action because politicians, particular on the far left, wanted to show how diverse their staffs were.
Of course I was also extremely good at my job but affirmative action gave me the opportunity to get good. I’m also very lucky to have very supportive parents and to have come of age in the post-racist era.
affirmative action is racism peepee. so you were lucky to live in a racist society.
I’m lucky to live in a society that whites consider racist against non-whites. Why do they believe that? Because they look around and see other whites with money & power & since people like you have ridiculed HBD as an explanation, they logically blame white privilege & to their credit, are trying hard to correct it.
No one has done more to spread anti-white racism than Stephen Jay Gould and as his useful idiots like you.
How did Gould spread anti-white racism?
By convincing people that whites were no smarter than the average human, and thus must have achieved their high status illegitimately.
I mean, I think it’s ironic that you’re saying that Gould promoted anti-white racism when his whole book was to critique the hereditarian hypothesis (which he rightly deemed racist). Gould’s critique is aimed at flawed methods and practices, not at any specific racial group.
And most importantly, Gould (1978/1981) showed the unconscious bias that Morton had with his skulls, that subsequent authors have verified (Weisberg, 2014; Kaplan, Pigliucci and Banta 2015; Weisberg and Paul, 2016; Mitchell, 2018). Ironically, Rushton misrepresented Gould’s (1978) reanalysis, and he miscited Gould’s table which—strangely, I’m sure…—coheres with his theory(see Cain and Vanderwolf, 1990). How strange!
I’m lucky to live in a society …
Stephen Jay Gould …
^^^LOW IQ COMPULSIVE LIAR^^^
you’re a THIEF peepee.
I’m a thief and a liar because I told the truth on job applications that I have minority ancestry?
You’re a compulsive liar with your decade of HBD denial which also makes you an accessory to the very affirmative action you consider theft.
pill supports the queen and king of England because government should have all the money.
Puppy calculate the chances of Rick Rosner and Chris Langan, the two highest IQ people in america both becoming bouncers and never finishing high school according to your economic model of income/IQ.
The probability should be computed according to the assumption that they’re not the highest IQ individuals in America. Even after you correct for range restriction, the correlation of Hoeflin tests with professional measures is quite low (much lower than that of other experimental tests including those created by Wai, Lato, Jouve, and Prousalis). Terry Tao almost surely crushes both of them, and I don’t even think Tao is the smartest person in America.
I hesitate to say one definitively crushes the other. Chris, despite growing up destitute and having essentially no formal education and meager access to books, achieved a record score on a test that loads heavily on mathematical background and rarefied verbal knowledge. As low as the Mega’s g-loading might be, that is an incredibly impressive feat. Also he blew the ceiling off the WAIS and has a one-in-a-million head size.
Tao is a generational math genius, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Langan had a world-class Raven’s-WAIS Similarities combo, or an extraordinary “Inductive Index.”
Chris Langan’s Mega score was achieved at an age when he was no longer saddled with such a deprived home environment. I don’t disagree that Tao was the beneficiary of receptive parents, but we also have to look at what they’ve each done since. We can’t place blame on Langan for being unable to attend college. We can argue that CTMU is (far from what he himself contends) evidence of lower intelligence than he believes. If you’ve read it, you’ll see what I mean. It’s pure sophistry. It’s far, far worse than Shinichi Mochizuki’s IUTT, which ofc Peter Scholze and other Fields medalists have dismantled.
His score is no longer a record, anyway. At least two people have equaled or exceeded it. One of them is a Dutchman with zero accomplishments.
But the test was probably a lot harder in the pre-internet day when Chris took it. Also, many of the answers have leaked.
Please redact both of the numbers here. The Titan question about tetrahedral dissection whose answer is [redacted by pp, March 10, 2024] and the Mega question about cube intersections whose answer is [redacted by pp, March 10, 2024] were both already spoiled. There’s a woodcut from M.C. Escher showing the cube 3-compound and an article in the Scientific American “Mathematical Games” column answering the tetrahedron question. Many of the analogies in the Mega test can be found in garden-variety puzzle books at Barnes & Noble. I heard this claim from someone else and had to check scans of these books to ensure I wasn’t hearing a load of tripe. I wasn’t. If you take Hoeflin tests with honesty, as I have, then the difficulty hasn’t changed. I have no way of knowing about the Dutch guy, but he took it early enough that I doubt he cheated. I believe he got 48/48. Here are some correlations: Mega-WAIS: 0.137, Mega- CTMM 0.307, Mega-SB 0.374, Mega-MAT 0.393, Mega-SAT 0.495. The highest between the Mega and any decent test is with the GRE at 0.574. The Titan is similarly bad. Most recent experimental tests are far superior to this. Jouve and Prousalis regularly find correlations in the 0.8-0.9+ range with professional tests.
The correlations you cite have not been corrected for range restriction.
Correction for range-restriction will not make much difference when you look at the actual datasets. Virtually every score on the relevant tests was well below the ceiling. You might argue that this simply means Hoeflin tests are poor in the low-mid range, but many of the score pairs were normed to points well above the ceilings of these tests on the Mega and Titan, including amongst people who got nowhere near the WAIS ceiling. I encourage you to look at Redvaldsen’s reanalysis of these tests (which, while flawed and likely slightly deflated, is more sane than the original norming). He attempts to correct for range restriction. There is no way to salvage a 0.137.
The original WAIS (which many in the sample would have taken) has a ceiling of “only” around 150 irrc and some of the subtests top out below +2 SD so someone who was +2 SD in every area would score way higher than an Einstein type who was +5 SD in some areas but +0 SD in others because the latter would have had their talents cut-off by ceiling bumping. I doubt the original WAIS gave valid results beyond a full-scale IQ of 140 at the most, so that would have dragged down the correlation.
The correlations with the higher ceiling SAT and GRE were respectable when corrected for range restriction irrc but I may want to look into this because I’m not sure the corrections were done correctly.
In keeping with his SAT (alleged, unconfirmed, but giving the benefit of the doubt) and WAIS results, I believe Langan is in the 160s or low 170s. Hoeflin tests are so much worse than others that I don’t think it’s reasonable to base any estimate on them. The more recent correlations of Jouve and Prousalis aren’t corrected for range restriction either.
I find it very curious how some people have a tendency to suck off Hoeflin for being an early adopter or for having a large sample of Omni Magazine normies. In truth, his tests have some of the worst statistics I’ve seen amongst experimental authors. And I’m not saying this out of spite. I score very well on all of them, including his tests, with essentially zero difference. But I’ve got to call a spade a spade. Even subjectively, Hoeflin tests “feel” the least like IQ tests out of all I’ve tried. The level of reasoning is minimal, the level of grindy computation is maximal. The data bear this out.
Because he was a pioneer, because of nostalgia, and because some may be psychologically invested in the validity of these tests, either because they scored high or hero worship people who did (langan).
I may be biased here in Langan’s case, but not generally regarding these tests. I absolutely hate Chris Langan. What kind of narcissist opens a Patreon and charges people money for the opportunity to send messages to the “smartest man in America”? I’ve read CTMU. It’s a load of bullshit, meaningless bloviation. If he wanted to advance the frontier of human knowledge, I don’t care about credentials, he’d have published literally anything but that. Langan is attempting to cultivate a mystique for people to worship him. Honestly the only differences between him and Keith Rainere are that Rainere outscored Langan at first attempt, that Langan stayed in Mega, that Langan doesn’t have three university degrees, that Langan thinks being a papier mache alt-right agitator is chic, that Langan’s attempts at creating a cult of personality are less successful, and that therefore Langan hasn’t been sentenced to 120 years in federal prison.
Well I’ve always had a positive opinion of him because he personifies the correlation between IQ and brain size which I’ve always found fascinating.
https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Chris_Langan_FAQ
He gives a plausible explanation in his response to the 4th question there. Raniere, on the other hand, has been credibly accused of working with other people on the Mega.
Chris is obviously megalomaniacal and almost certainly not the smartest man in America, but I’ve never seen anyone of consequence identify a substantive flaw in his CTMU; it’s usually just some limp-wristed, atheistic troll butthurt that he outscores them on tests.
He has some good conversations with Curt Jaimungal on YouTube that I recommend.
Raniere, not Rainere. Typo.
Appreciating the concrete demonstration of an abstract relationship doesn’t necessitate lionizing any man who personifies it. I’m quite sure Raniere has a big brain as well. It also does not necessitate playing into narcissitic delusions that cause one to overestimate one’s own intelligence.
Speaking of brain size, you should write a post estimating Ivan Turgenev’s IQ. He had the largest recorded brain in human history, well over 2000 cm^3 after it had shrunk post-mortem. Gauss had a brain in the 1400 cc range, and I’d be very hard pressed to call Turgenev smarter than Gauss. In my case, regression equations from external measurements provide an estimated brain volume of around 1730 cm^3. Despite this and all test results, I genuinely believe I am extremely stupid, because intelligence as adaptivity dictates that there can’t be anything good behind my constant inability to make correct life decisions.
This also reminds me of the rivalry between (in)famous paleontologists Edward Drinker Cope (I find this name funny, because “drinker cope” is a superlative descriptor of my life) and Othniel Charles Marsh. Cope donated his brain to science upon death and challenged Marsh to do the same, to prove his brain was larger. Marsh did not accept the bet. The upshot is that we did get a study on Cope’s brain. He shared some abnormalities in the parietal lobe, predicting high spatial ability, that we also sometimes see in great physicists and artists. I find this interesting because I was more of a prodigy in paleontology than anything else. Before I turned 10, I had rediscovered some fossil sites lost for a century, identified new species, and had a professor tell me I knew more about paleontology than his graduate students. I later became interested in physics and math. My highest subtest scores are in spatial reasoning.
The old SAT and GRE, in my opinion, are the best IQ tests that have ever existed for the 160+ range. Their sample sizes positively dwarf all other tests and, unlike the MAT (which takes third place for me), are not entirely verbal. Even after correcting for range restriction, the correlation to the SAT (more pairs and better test than the GRE) is not impressive or anything to write home about. 0.6-0.7 may be moderate, but if any other measure correlated at that level with an IQ test we wouldn’t call it an IQ test. At the highest levels, the old SAT and GRE still retain superior correlations.
I am, as always, somewhat biased here. I have been able to obtain numerous forms of the old SAT and GRE. On all but one form of the old SAT I have scored 1600, and on that one 1560. On the GRE, where I compiled subtests with the highest possible extrapolated ceiling, I obtained 2610 (900 A + 870 M + 840 V). The questions on these tests do not demand inordinate effort or subjective scoring like most experimental tests. Although like everyone else who obsesses over such things I’m absolutely arrogant and insecure, these results are lower than my scores on experimental tests. They are still better tests. I still am unsure whether my IQ might be in the 90s. It doesn’t matter. The old SAT is king, and I have innumerable studies to prove why.
There are many people in America who are more intelligent than Langan and Rosner, not to mention more successful.
Langan finished high school jackass.
You don’t understand what they math is doing.
I think causal direction is the issue here.
Tallness causes basketball ability, not vice versa. We’d expect the best basketball player in the world to be very tall, but the tallest person in the world is so inhumanly tall he probably can’t even sprint the length of the court without falling apart.
The richest self-made person in the world is almost certainly very smart, but the smartest person in the world might be too neurotic, quirky, or proud to even make six figures. Chris Langan probably didn’t deign to kiss the asses of his employers/professors to really get ahead academically/professionally and had to resort to being a working-class autodidact. There is such thing as too much of a good thing.
Chris Langan is nowhere near the smartest in the world. I have similar scores to his on that type of test, and I understand quite clearly that I don’t approach the ability of the cleverest people alive. Of course, being a drug addict interferes with it, but I’m not arrogant enough to cope by claiming that’s the sole reason. People at the highest level of potential simply do not take experimental tests, because they don’t require alternative validation.
I am tied for the highest score on LS36 after 25 years. The author sent me a note indicating that I had solved an LS24 item nobody else had ever solved. I am a member of all the notable 170-180 societies. I am objectively stupid. My results on other experimental tests are similar. I know people who are clearly smarter than I am. These tests are useless.
I think we can all agree the evidence on upper IQ testing is experimental. But the chances of Rosner and Langan, both being geniuses even on conventional tests and both becoming bouncers is basically zero according to Puppy’s theory of economics.
First of all, Rosner and Langan achieved their distinctions on different tests, so they are not the two smartest Americans on any one test. If you are going to call them the two smartest, you’d have to include the highest scoring person on every IQ test ever made, and then their rank would go from top two, to top 50 or so.
Second, Langan only achieved his smartest American title on his second try, which makes his score incomparable to the norming sample which achieved it on their first try. On Langan’s first try, he was one of the few hundred smartest Americans, not the #1 smartest.
Third, if Rosner was a bouncer, he was so only briefly. His peak occupation was a comedy writer for MTV and shows like Jimmy Kimmel which makes him way above average in job status.
But there’s no denying that Langan was at the very least one of the smartest few hundred Americans on at least one IQ test and there’s no denying he had a very low income before people knew his IQ.
But for every Chris Langan, there are up to three of the very richest billionaires (Gates, Ballmer, Allen) who all reportedly scored as high on the SAT as Langan scored on the Mega Test the first time and also reportedly on the SAT. Thus the median NORMALIZED lifetime income of boomers with (virtually) perfect SATs is probably extremely high if we assume a symmetrical distribution with Langan near the bottom and Gates, Ballmer and Allen at the top.
Biden is making a SOTU speech. Whats the chances he freezes mid speech or starts slurring his words? That guy has severe dementia. When they cancelled the superbowl interview, basically they admitted he had dementia.
Well, this aged poorly.
Biden’s speech proved what most intelligent people already knew. Biden doesn’t have dementia.
It just proves that whatever cognitive decline he has is only so bad that it can be temporarily alleviated by copius amounts of amphetamines.
I agree with most of Biden’s STATED policies, but as Cenk Ugher has observed theres a good chance that he believes the opposite and if the filibuster was ever somehow removed, he would bury his own policies.
That being said Biden is literally old enough to remember when America was a great country under FDR’s New Deal policies.
Pill, would support another US war if it was elons money they spent.
No, they would not spend his money BECAUSE THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT YOU FUCKING MORON –
pill would put the fed in charge of the war also and re-animate dick cheney to lead it.
Biden is a closet racist, DINO, Israeli shill. Of course, these are prerequisites to electability as an American “Democrat.” One need look no further than primaries or election margins to realize how corrupt American democracy is. It is literally worse than a monarchy would be, and I say this as an anti-monarchist. It is impossible to be a presidential candidate without the support of super-PACs (thanks, Citizens United) and propaganda determines outcomes. If the margin for victory is one or two percent (after accounting for the fact that the majority of Americans don’t vote), do you seriously mean to tell me a smaller proportion of voters can be swayed by one or two ads?
I said 5 years ago the primaries between Hilary and Bernie were rigged. The Mass one. The Maine one. Hilary won with 0.5%.
Usually you can tell a rigged vote in a reasonably functioning election when the margin is less than 0.5%. The south korean election looks very suspicious to me where the puppet of the chaebol elites won despite openly running on Macron economic policies.
Bernie is the type specimen for DNC collusion, but it happens with the RNC as well obviously. Macron is a curious case insofar as he tried to compete with Le Pen as a “populist” candidate while representing deep-pocket interests.
The reason why it is worse than a monarchy is that people under monarchy acutely understand the nature of their oppression. People under American democracy assume that (because the system is “fair”) all solutions must come from within and the flaws are particular to individual politicians. American democracy is so dangerous because it is more difficult to overthrow.
Youre too negative. I agree the corruption in America is bleak and the ashkenazim/neoliberal (autist?) gentiles run the country via the courts.
But its still possible for the government to have a legitimacy crisis and change direction. Donald Trump restored my faith in democracy. They threw the kitchen sink at him and he won. He changed the open border/repopulation policy for 4 years. Net migration was basically zero.
On the other hand he had to bend the knee to Israel to keep at least some ashkenazim happy. But he managed to ignore them about invading Iran. Barely. (He still had to assassinate Iran’s top general to make them happy).
Its not as bleak as you say it. From a historical perspective, it was even worse 100 years ago, where it was literally Vanderbilt, Du Pont, Dillon and Rockefeller picking the candidates without any voting at all from anyone and the working class had zero welfare/pension/education. I don’t know your politics, but you might consider the expansion in minority rights for blacks, gays and so on a plus too.
When Trump and Epstein schmooze around with each other and the man was already a multi-billionaire (from daddy’s money, which he did his utmost to squander), do you seriously expect me to believe he represents anything other than controlled opposition? I’m not arguing it’s necessarily worse de dicto than at other points in American history, but it is worse de re due to globalization of the economy and technological progress.
What is worse is not the absolute condition of the working class. What is worse is the false-consciousness all Americans languish in. The elites can now better afford to provide the illusion of security while maintaining docility amongst American everymen. As far as my politics go, I oppose social conservativism, identity politics, and capitalism. I consider it unfortunate that the modern left has weaponized token issues to divert attention from truly revolutionary class struggle. Of course, LGBT rights to existence should be protected. On the other hand, fighting over the integration of these materials into schools seems carefully designed to distract from more salient threats. As both Kaczynski and Zizek astutely observed, modern “leftism” contradicts its basic premise by muddling the signifier-signified distinction and assuming words can change reality. These people have clearly not read Marx or Hegel, because they have zero comprehension of dialectical materialism. Zizek would call the modern left’s attempts at transgressive action “Ptolemization.” Ted arrived at the same conclusion, by observing that pseudo-transgressive movements within the existing system serve to revivify it and re-entrench its control.
N.B. “docility” should be read as “the absence of unified movements for social change.” It is perfectly possible for this to coexist with illusory partisan divisions, and in the present case feeds off of these.
To put your jargon into words the average person can understand, Marx was complaining about brainwashing 300 years ago. The upper class have been brainwashing the masses literally since day 1 of civilisation. Formerly, religion, ‘divine rights’, ‘nobility’, latterly ‘job creators’, ‘efficiency’ and so on. The words change, the system improves bit by bit. Communism accelerated the working class living standard by about 300 years in the West, just by existing in Russia and scaring the aristocracy.
The problem is theres no real communism bogeyman or threat of revolution externally or internally anymore. They got rid of the aristocracy picking the politicians directly. Now its indirectly. Still an improvement.
Trump is simply not the same as Kravis, Scwarzmann, Druckenmiller or these other elites in at least 50% of his political positions which is why they spent $300m backing Hailey and De Santis. He doesn’t want to repopulate America with the third world and thankfully doesn’t want to keep invading Israel’s enemies.
If we had no chance to change anything Trump would have been a non entity.
Bernie would have been much better than Trump, but the elites rigged it openly to keep him out. Trump is more amenable to them on economics.
and thankfully doesn’t want to keep invading Israel’s enemies.
^^^Autism^^^
He ripped up the Iran nuclear deal, killed an Iranian General and probably would have invaded Iran had Tucker Carlson not talked him out of it.
According to a 2018 report in The Daily Beast, Obama launched 186 drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan during his first two years in office. In Trump’s first two years, he launched 238.
The Trump administration has carried out 176 strikes in Yemen in just two years, compared with 154 there during all eight years of Obama’s tenure, according to a count by The Associated Press and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Experts also say drone strikes under President Trump have surged in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
And, as was the case during Obama’s presidency, these strikes have resulted in untold numbers of civilian casualties. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan killed more than 150 civilians in the first nine months of 2018.
Amnesty International reports drones have killed at least 14 civilians in Somalia since 2017.
As of January of this year, U.S. drone strikes fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria have killed at least 1,257 civilians, according to the Pentagon, and a monitoring group, Airwars, estimates the number to be as great as 7,500.
That you might not be aware of what should be a startling and deeply troubling escalation in unaccountable remote-control warfare by the U.S. is both by design and default.
For one, the Obama administration paved the way for popularizing and normalizing drone wars, which also included the extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizens, first by hiding it, then by begrudgingly acknowledging it, and then by pretending to meaningfully constrain it.
Obama eventually put in place arcane requirements to issue public reports on civilian death tolls (but just in certain military theaters), to limit targets to high-level militants (again, in certain battlefields), and require interagency approval (also only for certain targets).
Trump has peeled back all of those requirements because, well, he can. We now know more than we did about U.S. drone wars when Obama first took office, but less than when he left.
You can also blame cowardly, partisan politics for hearing little from lawmakers about these escalations. Republicans, of course, no longer criticize these sorts of things — even if they subscribe to Trump’s Obama-rebuking, “America First” isolationism. And Democrats who might take issue with unaccountable wars and civilian deaths know to do so they’d have to acknowledge Obama’s role in the mess, and so …Trump’s tax returns it is.
You can’t, however, blame the media for this one. Refreshingly, many mainstream outlets have been reporting on this escalation for months if not years. From Foreign Policy to The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal to Fox News, The Washington Post to CNN, the issue is getting coverage. Whether Americans care or not is another story.
De-escalating our involvement — even shadow or unmanned — in overseas conflicts was something that many Trump critics and supporters were welcoming, especially abroad. One CBC headline from 2016 read, “Drone King Barack Obama will not be missed.” Another, from The Guardian: “At least President Trump would ground the drones.”
It was all wishful thinking.
S.E. Cupp is the host of “S.E. Cupp Unfiltered” on CNN.
Don’t disagree with much of this, but I still think Trump is
I) a compromise candidate as a partial insider
II) completely inappropriate for a Marxist to support, but perhaps amenable to the accelerationist viewpoint
This is not very relevant, but I’m actually related to Stanley Druckenmiller. No, that’s not a joke. I checked the records. I’m descended from Sarah Druckenmiller in the late 1800s and so is he. A rather shameful connection.
Which brings me to another matter. I feel weird that my family tends to be super high-IQ on average. My uncle got 1600 on the old SAT. There are actually way more accomplished people in my immediate family but I won’t give details because they’re probably identifiable. Druckenmiller is on my mother’s side. On my father’s side I’m related to two Nobel laureates (one in chemistry, one in physics). Again, I won’t say which ones because they have surnames identical to mine up to minor permutations in spelling.
I still can’t figure out whether the Druckenmillers were originally Ashkenazi converts to Christianity or not.
Correction: he’s descended from Sarah’s brother. I was being an idiot.
Oh god the black power crap. I just roll my eyes at all this stuff.
Most of the extremely zealous identity-politics enthusiasts are white. Including the ones who bay for reparations.
It’s quite ironic.
Puppy adores the black power crap. You mention 10,000 years a slave, selma, slavery etc Puppys eyes will roll into the back of his head and he starts humming.
This was a good SOTU. Biden did well. He must have practiced 400 times or something.
Listening to Biden he reminds me of something unique that old people have and thats experience and wisdom which isn’t something you can get from IQ. I listen to Buffet talk for similar reasons. When he talked about his dad complaining about FDR destroying the country.
FYI, my policy preferences are literally a copy and paste of FDR on every issue. Including race and immigration.
we should not start wars in the middle east because neocons are in charge – pill
we should give the government more power and money – pill
–
pill has cognitive dissonance
Anime I don’t want you to be offended. But when I correctly called you a libertartian just based on the fact that you have severe autism, I wasn’t wrong wasn’t I? Its called social intelligence. I can tell your thoughts and personality literally from your picture and your eyes. You have basically half a brain.
Your knowledge and economic understanding is so poor compared to mine it would literally take me a 3 hour 1 to 1 session just to get you to the basic level of understanding of just a typical NYT or Wall Street Journal reader has. For example, you keep calling the government, ‘the Queen’ when the Queen hasn’t controlled taxpayer money for 250 years to any extent. And its the King, by the way.
Convincing a person with autism about the stupidity of libertarianism is like convincing a blind person about the merit of art. You need a social faculty to understand how human beings live.
Look, we’re not going to debate this any longer. Youre too far below me in understanding for this to even make sense to you. You and Bruno need to keep voting for Macron and hope his Master feels generous enough to give your bottom 10% family charity lol.
Philo may actually be the dumbest person here.
^pill being a bigot again
Your IQ pill is above 125 – you cannot use that as an excuse to call people autisist because they are not spending all their time looking into politics. Your job basically is to look into finances so anyone who is not into your job area is autistic to you. You pill are a sub 70 iq retarded person because you don’t understand computers or artificial intelligence. So shut the fuck up.
“Its called social intelligence.”
no, it is called be obsessed with politics by a high iq sociopath.
normal people, normal iq 100 people don’t do what you do jackass.
You are like race realist – you are in the danger zone where your intelligence leads you to believe you are correct 100% because you never encounter people smarter than you are.
My intelligence is high enough to know what you are saying but you are a bully so no one will ever be able to change your mind exactly like race realist.
“You and Bruno need to keep voting for Macron and hope his Master feels generous enough to give your bottom 10% family charity lol.”
–
You Fucking moron.
Who is in charge of the government, who starts the wars and shit.
Who makes sure people, at the bottom don’t get the money.
People like pill.
pill makes sure, 100 percent sure people at the bottom don’t get money because he would be embedded in the system to do so.
because pill is a sociopath and the government is a sociopath led by sociopaths – rich people = the government and pill is trying to fool people that rich people are more sociopathic than the government.
LISTEN PILL YOU FUCKING MORON
no one in the government is FDR
no one will do those policies ever again
even if trump wins that will last 4 years and then never again
–
pill is the dumbest person
he thinks sociopaths don’t lead the government
he thinks the government is separate from the rich people’s influence
sociopath pill will tell you that only rich people are sociopaths.
it is sociopathy all the way down.
pill supports a corrupt system but only tells you half the story.
just tell Pill the homo that Mel Gibson has a small dick and he’ll shut up.
This blog is so demented it’s the only thing that’ll work at this point.
Anime might have the worst verbal reasoning the comment section. Worse than RR’s ‘official’ theories. (We both know RR what your really think about blacks deep down, hahaha).
RR isn’t here to debate. Its rage. Hes here to rage at people for not being moral.
RR is autistic and narcissistic he thinks he is intellectually inclined because he reads books that are hard 2 find but overall he is an idiot.
he is incompetent at having an honest discussion and getting people believing in him.
He is just alienating his cause anyways people should avoid this retard but never do.
Wow, even Loaded has awaken from his schizophrenic reverie to say something coherent. Must be meds.
Rockmeme.
Imagine actually believing I’m an autist. On a blog where everyone accuses everyone else of being an autist. Haha. You’re a manlet, my guy. I’d be mad if I were you too.
You definitely have autism if the only thing you’re interested in is a singular topic that no one else takes interest in.
RR is resilient with trying 2 debate the topic but at the end of the day the establishment knows RR is wrong.
he can say whatever he wants but no one believes him nor do they take actual faith in his arguments.
no affirmative action employee has ever been good at his job, or even does anything. he’s just there. he’s paid to be present.
if peepee’s parents supported her then why does she go to a support group? why is she a sociopath? and why is she a lesbian? who molested her?
peepee would be homeless or in prison if it weren’t for affirmative action yet she calls pipo wytrash and whines about wyprivilege.
you’re not good at your job peepee. you’re black.
no affirmative action employee has ever been good at his job, or even does anything. he’s just there. he’s paid to be present.
That is the most illogical thing anyone on this blog has ever said. I know TONS of diversity hires who are fabulous at their job and work their ass off. Why someone was hired != how good they are at their job. You’re just too STUPID to realize that.
I know TONS of diversity hires who are fabulous at their job
i’m sure you THINK you do. but you’re wrong. they’re a burden.
luh
hoo
zer
RR IS CORRECT. THERE IS SYSTEMATIC RACISM AGAINST WYPIPO. THAT’S THE ONLY KIND THAT STILL EXISTS.
U R PURE TRASH PEEPEE!
Mindy Kaling is an example of highly productive diversity hire. This movie was semi-autobiorgaphical
In Canada most of the racial diversity hires are highly selected immigrants so we’re almost more productive on average than the straight white male non-disabled workers, at least those of us who speak clear English.
I know that when I worked for one politician I added more names to his email list than any one else on the staff. I then used my statistical skills that are 5 SD above your level to help him conduct polls and save a ton of money not hiring a polling company. And my polls correctly predicted he’d lose the election thanks to people like Mug of Pee.
yet she calls pipo wytrash and whines about wyprivilege.
No I call YOU white trash because you are white and you are trash.
But your trashiness has nothing to do with you being white. My mother’s white and she’s a SAINT!
But you would be trash if you were black, brown, yellow, red or purple.
Now there was white privilege in the 1980s and 1990s, but today that’s all gone, and there’s actually black privilege.
But you can’t hold two conflicting ideas in your head at the same time because mediocre working memory as proven by your digit span scaled score of 10 on the WISC-R, despite being raised by Harvard law grad. Have you any idea how low your genetic working memory must be to be at the 50th percentile at age 10, despite having a home environment in the top 0.01%?
White privilege definitely still exists today but we need to be more specific and talk about white class privilege. And even non-whites can benefit:
Sullivan (2019: chapter 2) discusses some blacks who benefit from white privilege. One of the people she discusses has a white parent. This is what gives her her lighter skin, but that is not where her privilege comes from (think colorism in the black community where lighter skin is more prized than darker skin). Her privilege came from “her implicit knowledge of white norms, sensibilities, and ways of doing things that came from living with and being accepted by white family members” (Sullivan, 2019: 26). This is what Sullivan calls “family familiarity” and is one of the ways that blacks can benefit from white privilege. Another way in which blacks can benefit from white privilege is due to “ancestral ties to whiteness.”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/11/28/white-privilege-what-it-is-and-who-has-it/
To beat TP to the punch
You deny HBD so it’s totally logical for you to believe white privilege still exists.
Mug of Pee also denies HBD so it’s totally illogical for him to deny white privilege still exists.
RaceRealist is a Racist bastard.
PP, true I can see that. I’d like to see his defense if he has one.
AK, it’s not racist since it doesn’t promote or justify racial hierarchies and inequalities/inequities and it recognizes that systemic
racism is embedded in institutions.
>racism is embedded in institutions.
class matter more than race
because the laws got rid of discrimination long ago
Racism still exists today. That’s a fact.
You said institutions = racism
Which intuitions are racists then?
For one, healthcare.
Seriously what was offensive about this comment?
long investment in stocks = what is the present value of this company’s future total yield (= dividends + buybacks)?
short = what company is most overvalued?
eusocial = determination of price = preventing (positive) bubbles and (negative) bubbles
speculating in stocks = how can i exploit other pipo’s greed and stupidity?
anstisocial = ripping off your fellow greedy cunt
effectively:
investors try to STOP bubbles.
speculators try to ENHANCE bubbles.
i fink u freeky and i like you a lot
is code for…
all your boers are belong to us…
once more i will be a prophet…
sad!
i could keep typing, but i’ve run out of EtOH. sad.
the following is on fumes…
we all live in a world where germany 1932-1945 is supposed to be some kind of FREAK!
some kind of totally unrelated to anything before or after.
once more i will be a prophet…
in the centuries to come hitler et al will be re-habilitated a little bit.
a little bit.
you insulted him a little bit. — deniro as jimmy burke
Not a very amazing prediction since it has already been happening for the past couple of years, especially since Kanye’s rants and October 7th for example. I don’t hang around (literal) boomers that much so maybe their opinion hasn’t changed though. They’re still on the MLK tip.
anyone who actually cheers 4 nazis is actually retarded. White nationalism sounds retarded because of impracticality and it’s just plain wrong.
the fact that there are people on this blog who support it like three fifths at least is disgusting.
Great argument, except literally everywhere in America is separated de facto into racial or class lines (which are very racial as well, obviously). The places that aren’t are generally melting pots for destructive forces and implode upon themselves in crime.
An area that isn’t similar in race or wealth is similar to a mind that is schizophrenic or otherwise severely mentally ill, it always ends up lashing out or destroying itself. Or, people start to once again, separate themselves by group voluntarily.
they haven’t implanted successful melting pots etc in America at least.
some Scandinavian countries are better examples of places where melting pots can happen but it just depends on cultural values. If you can bring people 2gether on a common mission then racially motivated nationalism becomes a lot less appealing 2 people.
if you have people who come together with the same values as each other regardless of race it’s practical in having melting pots.
Muslims Mormons Protestant groups can attest 2 this I believe.
it’s just that there are people trying 2 take advantage of the system or getting screwed by it!
amazon execs are on record pushing for diversity because it makes unionization LESS likely.
immigrants are scabs.
iceland is the world’s best country by almost every measure because it is small and homogeneous and has enormous national feeling. even though its people are about 1/3d irish.
hitler, goebbels, and the rest were socialists. straight up. they were just practical about than the bolshies. the capitalist class would be phased out rather than liquidated all at once.
amazon execs are on record pushing for diversity because it makes unionization LESS likely.
Well in Canada there seems to be a positive correlation between amount of diversity and how pro-union the organization is. The federal government is teeming with diversity hires and they are EXTREMELY pro-union & pro-worker benefits. They have an extremely strong union that just went on a major strike about a year ago and when they were striking, a double decker bus drove by with the driver honking his support as a Muslim lady in full body hijab at the roofless top of the bus stood there manically waving her thumbs up.
mother russia is a mother fucker. putin loves himself some immigrants and has suppressed all anti-immigrant parties.
so the PRC is the modern day nazi germany. but with 1.4b pipo.
the roman church is the largest and oldest institution on earth and it’s political structure is similar to the CCP’s and CPSU’s. it’s a democracy within one ruling party.
the cardinals are named by the pope who is then named by the cardinals.
a thousand words
Well in Canada…
peepee may actually believe this because low IQ and severe autism and EVIL.
peepee: no! i know this because i lie compulsively! and i work for a polling company n shit.
mugabe: exactly! sad! your fake company is a FRAUD and needs to be shut down immediately!
You lied compulsively about HBD for ten years all so you could feel morally superior at the expense of countless whites and East Asians who because of your lies, never got into good universities and top jobs. I wonder how many diseases could have been cured, inventions could have been made, had it not been for all the disinfo you spread.
^^^PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA^^^
what do my fellow commenters believe about human imagination or creativity?
it is one thing 2 be creative in words or even in pictorial terms but a multifaceted approach 2 creativity and imagination takes so much intelligence 2 do that it becomes a great task. So mixing words pictures and concepts in the pursuit of finding blended creativity and imagination is a testament 2 understanding this realm.
understanding is one thing and then generating is a higher order task.
Stop using numbers and start using words like ‘to’ you fucking idiot.
stfu Hindu asshole your whole culture is backwards and retarded it will be the last future 2 successfully integrate 2 the west because most people despise Hindus like you.
caste system and all your culture is fucked up and has the worst genetics and environment around.
Just accept it you are inferior!
Finally someone said it.
RR you don’t even believe in intellectual differences in intelligence how exactly would I be dumber than someone if you don’t believe cognitive differences exist.
Anyways I firmly believe I am smarter than both you and Name because you can’t effectively change your mind about anything even when given irrefutable evidence otherwise and Name is just a moron in every way with a supremacist attitude about everything.
watch out 4 idiots like RR and Name in your daily life they will do nothing but exploit and hurt it.
I’m talking about this.
“Stop using numbers and start using words like ‘to’”
And I’ve changed my mind on some pretty big things. Problem is, you don’t really talk about anything here.
I’ve talked a lot about things not related 2 your theories and thus you find it problematic.
I don’t find interest in debunking intelligence differences because it’s not possible.
many times i’ve tried to “black dildo” rr.
and he’s always refused.
because racism, sexism, and homophobia.
STFU BITCH!
THE UNITED STATES IS A REVOLUTIONARY NATION!
STILL!
Mug is sadly the most mentally ill person I’ve ever encountered.
I’m surprised this guy made it 2 forty let alone beyond that. He is a very serious nutcase.
i am LOADED.
what RR and Name two autistic dimwits and IQ deniers guilty of is they don’t believe in implications.
because they are autistic everything in their minds means it must be stated or it’s not true they believe in literality in other words like many autists.
they get offended when people call them autistic because they wanna be called “Asperger’s” instead but it’s clearly a retardation of something in the mind that causes them 2 behave this way.
It’s ironic because these two autistic fucks I mean gentlemen believe that me using numbers instead of prepositions hinders them in some way.
that is absolutely not true they’re just looking 4 a fight. Fuck them may RR and Name suck dick eternally.
Rockmeme
RR is a lot of things. Confused. Rage. Angry. Brainwashed by ashkenazim.
He is not autistic.
In the 7 years I’ve been here, its obvious Melo and RR are just low IQ people, not autistic.
This guy ‘Name’ is autistic. Anime is severely autistic. You can tell the autism the way they write. Doesn’t matter their first language.
LMAO.
I just watched Mike Johnson sit there and shake his head for half of the SOTU and then stand up and applaud after Joe Biden mentioned Israel once.
Why am I always right?
I saw a clip of Nick Fuentes saying the exact same thing.
This is like Mugabe’s very brilliant prediction that we will see a rise in people questioning the WWII narrative and Hitler’s actual motivations and personality.
Clearly you watch too much media where the people say “they’re always right” and are mirroring their language. Let’s not do that. It’s like wearing a manbun because you’ve seen other gymbros do it. (I’m glad you can finally admit that the Israel is a top priority for both parties though)
the peepee doth protest too much methinks.
like that time peepee said “imabouta get myself a good gubment job n shit” after i told she had a monkey mouth after she refused to watch my documentary on making sake.
peepee has no memory and lies compulsively. therefore she sucks at any wycollar job.
black narcissism!
Mike Johnson voted twice against funding the neocon war in Ukraine. Then he became speaker and suddenly, he wants Ukraine to annoy Putin more. Basically he got ‘the talk’.
Calculate how many geniuses are born to the working class and end up doing blue collar jobs versus born to the upper class and founding a tech co.
Langan, Rosner, they’re not unique. Look at our own Mugabe. Look at Marsha. Whats Terry Tao’s salary? Hes a full professor in an Australian state uni. Can’t be much either.
Right now theres a million mensa level people shitting into holes in the ground in rigged dictatorships and it wont matter what they do or what decisions they make. Now add another million with disabilites. Another million with shitty families. Another million being sold drugs. Another million doing sex work.
Puppy wouldn’t know what a normal person is if he met one on the street.
All I know is that on average, IQ increases as a linear function of normalized income for the full range of income, from extreme poverty to self-made centibillionaire.
Is the reverse also true? Does normalized income also increase as a function of IQ? At least from about 50 to 150. Beyond 150 we don’t have good data.
Got aa source for that claim?
Source that IQ is a linear function of normalized income: the very blog post we’re commenting on
Source that normalized income is a linear function of IQ: https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/11/09/hypocrites-who-deny-linear-iq-income-correlation/
There are some good sources here re income/wealth.
Those are horrible crap sources
Why? They clearly argued it’s a self-fulfilling “predictor”—nevermind the other arguments I made the other day.
Basically autists seem to have ‘just world fallacy’. Google it. Its like they are stunted socially into being permenant 10 year olds.
Well between Biden and Trump, I want Biden to win. But Trump is easily more consequential historically than the last 5 presidents. Maybe going back to JFK. He showed an outside with genius social intellienge can annoy the jews.
Chris Langan is a hardcore MAGA person. You can just tell. But he would support Trump for the same reason Mugabe would. To piss off the jews.