(To take the General Knowledge test click here (you can use a fake name for registration; email optional))
Tests of Information are perhaps the most familiar and mainstream of all types of cognitive tests. They are to be found in popular board games like Trivial Pursuit, hit TV game shows like Jeopardy and Who wants to be a millionaire? and trivia nights at your local bar. The test had long been used by psychiatrists as a quick and dirty measure of intelligence but psychologists eschewed it until WWI when it was included in the Army Alpha Group IQ test. To the shock of many, it proved to be one of the best in the battery, correlating better with the overall score than much more respected tests like Arithmetic, Analogies and Disarranged Sentences (Wechsler, 1958). It also showed a much better bell curve with fewer zero scores and fewer people piling up at the maximum score (Wechsler 1958).
Although the test is easily criticized as culturally biased and a measure of education not intelligence, Wechsler’s experience showed such criticisms to be unfounded, particularly if the specific items were chosen skillfully. Wechsler defined a good item as one that the average person, with average opportunity has a chance to learn for himself. So a question like “how heavy is the average American newborn baby?” would be much better than “what state produces the most gold?”. “How far is it from Toronto to Tokyo?” much better than “how far is it from the Earth to the sun?”
“The fact is,” wrote Wechsler “all objections considered, the range of a man’s knowledge is generally a very good indication of his intellectual capacity.”
In addition to this, such tests are fun to take and easy to devise, administer and score. Given all these merits, I decided to include an Information subtest in the PAIS. The PAIS Information subtest consists of 28 items ranging from extremely easy (snake) to profoundly difficult (Native American carved in wood). In a preliminary norming sample of 16 native born English speaking Canadians found at my local pool hall, the mean score was 12 with an SD of 3.4. Scores ranged from 4 (a suspected retardate) to 18 (university alum) corresponding to IQs of 65 to 126 (Canadian norms) or 69 to 128 (U.S. norms).
A preliminary estimate for how this test maps to IQ is as follows:
IQ (U.S. norms) = (Information raw score)(4.29) + 52
IQ (Canadian norms/U.S. white norms) = (information raw score)(4.43) + 47
| Information item | Percent of the general Canadian population passing |
| 1. Snake | 100 |
| 2. Eggs | 100 |
| 3. Mac | 100 |
| 4. Taj | 94 |
| 5. Tower | 88 |
| 6. United States | 81 |
| 7. Color | 81 |
| 8. Fast | 69 |
| 9. Crocodile | 63 |
| 10. Jesus | 63 |
| 11. Joe | 44 |
| 12. Pig | 44 |
| 13. Name | 38 |
| 14. Iron | 38 |
| 15. Dr. | 31 |
| 16. Independence | 31 |
| 17. 84 | 31 |
| 18. Wonderful | 19 |
| 19. Space | 19 |
| 20. Computer | 19 |
| 21. Lord | 13 |
| 22. Capital | 13 |
| 23. Gene | 13 |
| 24. Complex | 6 |
| 25. Founder | 6 |
| 26. Skeleton | 0 |
| 27. Bird | 0 |
| 28. Native American carved in wood | 0 |
Pumpkin Person 
The range of a man’s knowledge is reflective of his experiences, and since Jensen’s default hypothesis is false, the black-white IQ gap is environmentally caused. (Due to differences in cultural/psychological tools—the same is true for individuals.)
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/12/24/jensens-default-hypothesis-is-false-a-theory-of-knowledge-acquisition/
No youre lying. And youre angry. The black white gap is mostly genetic.
Is Jensen’s default hypothesis true or false?
Probably false because it would imply a chunck of the black-white gap is chance environment and races can’t differ on chance environment. I tried to explain to pill but he can’t think abstractly. Neither can Mug of Pee.
If it’s false then the black-white IQ gap is environmentally caused.
That doesn’t follow. It might mean it’s even more genetic than Jensen thought.
Yea it does follow. What do you think think Jensen’s DH is?
It means differences between races have the same cause as differences within them
Jensen (1998: 444) said that individual and group differences are “composed of the same stuff” meaning that they are “controlled by differences in allele frequencies” and that these differences in allele frequencies also exist for all “heritable” characters, and that we would find such differences within populations too. So if the default hypothesis is true, then it would suggest that differences in IQ between blacks and whites are primarily attributed to the same genetic and environmental influences that account for individual differences within each group. Therefore if differences in experience lead to differences in knowledge, and differences in knowledge lead to differences in IQ scores, then Jensen’s assumption that blacks and whites have the same opportunity to learn the content is.
“then Jensen’s assumption that blacks and whites have the same opportunity to learn the content is” false.
It counted my answer as wrong on the fast food question because I included an apostrophe. Also for the lord question, I changed it to the correct answer before submitting, but it counted my original answer for some reason.
0% of people in your sample got the bird question right? JC
Yes I noticed the apostrophe thing and adjusted your score accordingly and immediately added your answer so future people would not be penalized. My norming sample took the test orally so I didn’t anticipate everything that might go wrong with a written computer scored version.
Also for the lord question, I changed it to the correct answer before submitting, but it counted my original answer for some reason.
Probably because you changed it after the 14 minute time limit elapsed.
No I’m positive I submitted with time to spare. I think the issue is that I was getting error messages on the survey portion, so I had to hit back and resubmit because it wouldn’t let me proceed.
Good, eclectic test but I think the “complex” question is subjective and inappropriate.
Good work!
Glad you like it. I see what you mean about the complex question since there’s no way to prove it.
I think the issue is that I was getting error messages on the survey portion, so I had to hit back and resubmit because it wouldn’t let me proceed.
I’ll credit you with that item since you likely would have got it had you been administered it orally like the norming sample (they too would sometimes ask to change a previous answer).
Oh never mind it was a different bird question LOL
I got 24, although registered 23 because I accidentally misspelled rapper name. Correlates to 156? Very close to my sat! Still, I think the test is too easy and gets too esoteric quickly. Goes from cake to really hard. The Native American thing favors Americans. Should have something from Japanese or Chinese mythos.
Doesn’t really favour introverts. I don’t watch TV or media news shows and dump information away that is cohort-specific like pop star idols. Technically if I was younger I would remember some of the names of Back Street Boy bands or whatever. Maybe add more technical items that are more loaded.
It was intended for Americans and Canadians. I’m not sure if you could make a valid general knowledge test that could compare people all over the World.
well, Information subtest from WAIS-III( and WAIS-iv) is surprisingly suitable for anyone from the western world (in the widest understanding of the term)
The WAIS-IV Info contains a question about British fiction and a question about U.S. history, but other than that I agree it’s fairly universal, but it achieves this at the expense of asking almost nothing cultural.
Fun test. Thanks for sharing. 23/28
Thanks for taking it.
the propensity 2 learn otherwise called intellect is important 2 integrate in purposes of justifying what others cannot see and cannot do.
inclinations 2 learn are important because they show what systematic tools are there 2 build a higher processing system and learn efficiently and effectively then.
the learned never separate their tools from their cache of wealth of knowledge.
By the way, I sent an email to easiestquestion@hotmail.ca a few weeks ago in an attempt to offer you my WAIS-IV results and other data to use for your blog. I’m not sure if you received it. Feel free not to post this comment; I just wanted to try another way to contact you directly in the event you did not receive my email.
Sorry WordPress is suddenly spamming my email with every comment on my blog even though I turned that function off years ago. That’s no way to treat one of their biggest cash cows. Shits gona hit the fan
LOL!
Score22/28 (78%)
Duration03m:53s
I feel like a lot of them are easier for people who read your blog.
15 correct + 3 correct, but misspelled (I am not English native speaker). Could guess a few more. Some were no chance, even at the top of the list like colour of the Big Bird (heard for the first time about Sesame Street) or baseball.
I’m adjusting all scores for misspellings since my norming sample didn’t have to spell anything. I tried to anticipate spelling mistakes in the scoring but there are many I didn’t think of.
the brain works as a whole so we need a holistic approach!
we can’t just discriminate one thing as another and that’s where IQ tests may divert from real functioning.
we need 2 summarize how the human mind coordinates all spheres of thought and how these koans interact!
I got a 21 it wasn’t too hard. I put [redacted by pp, 2024-03-12] as the Joe [redacted by pp, 2024-03-12] answer I think that would be more appropriate!
excellent test though.
Glad you liked it. I adjusted your score upward since you obviously knew what he was famous for and will add your answer to the computer’s list of acceptable responses.
awesome. Broadening the number of answers will indeed give a benefit that is there.
this will be very important 2 the ability 4 the test 2 accurately measure.
I agree general knowledge is a good proxy. But not for autistic people. Autists don’t really read non-technical info. They read license plates and tables and computer code and equations. None of that is going to come up on a general knowledge test.
Actually autists do relatively well on Information. It’s usually their best verbal score.
Puppy should be a man and just admit he has the worst general knowledge in the comment section. I had to tell him who MBS was. I had educate puppy on colonial history maybe 400 times over the past 7 years.
To this day Puppy still doesn’t accept blacks sold other blacks into slavery and therefore reparations is stupid.
On the WISC-R my general knowledge was higher than 75% of American kids my age so above average, but probably low compared to most of my readers. It was a scaled score of 12 which is like IQ 110 (U.S. norms). My lack of knowledge drags down my verbal IQ.
Funnily enough, american celeb culture is actually one of my strong points in general knowledge. I certainly know more about celebs than puppy knows about history.
Score
17/28 (60%)
Duration
10m:59s
IQ 124.93
In 2016 when I was 28 I scored 140 on information.
I do spend most of my time researching things that generally would not be in the public cultural domain so I think I know more than the test says I do.
I believe it is a matter of exposure to the items involved.
“I believe it is a matter of exposure to the items involved.”
He’s almost there.
You said I can’t read.
No, I cannot read “fast”.
How is exposure supposed to make me read fast as you, it won’t. And it will not increase my spatial or visual intelligence.
You don’t get it, intelligence only works if it can absorb the data and manipulate it. How many things can you put together in your head at the same time? 10, 20, 30? you won’t answer because you don’t believe in spatial intelligence, you just memorize things with no critical thought. Critical thought is something I have because I understand spatial intelligence exists which you deny. You think intelligence is only memorization because you are good at it and that everyone can memorize in the same way you do because you are delusional.
Right AK, it’s very simple. If you were able to get the exact same score, and do it twice as fast, without sacrificing literally anything else about yourself, you’d be unequivocally more intelligent.
The underlying structure of how that works, or when quantity vs. quality of knowledge matters, whether it’s even possible to gain in one way without sacrificing in another, etc. do not matter when it comes to that basic fact. That is what it means to be “more intelligent”. That’s a pure measurement.
I think being more intelligent requires more extensional real estate, either spatially or temporally (more mental storage or faster processing and more efficient storage) so there apparent contingencies, but that is the basic abstract notion everyone has in mind when they think “greater intelligence”.
Obviously exposure matters insofar as you need the knowledge in your mind for it to be your knowledge. No one debates that and there is nothing contradictory about believing in G and also thinking test items can be trained for.
“You said I can’t read.”
Surely you knew what I meant when I said that. I’ve said what I think intelligence is—it’s nothing like the psychometricians think it is. I critically think about my views and numerous things all the time—just read my blog.
“No one debates that”
Many people claim that there are “knowledge-/culture-free” tests—but that’s impossible.
“Virtually knowledge free” is what they should be called.
Which part has knowledge-free content?
Yes there’s no such thing as “knowledge-free” because even the structure necessary to acquire knowledge or manipulate it is a form of information and therefore shares structure with the knowledge itself, which is also information, and so that very structure could be viewed as “innate knowledge” or at least an “innate type of processing”, but there are forms of questions that are more fair to any human with the basic linguistic and sensory structures.
E.G.: asking someone else what you, RR, had for breakfast is less culture-fair than asking what an average American might have for breakfast.
Or asking someone to say the name of some city and accepting various possible pronunciations, as long as those were regionally-accurate pronunciations.
Or, asking what year it is now vs. asking what year RR was born. Or the year of birth of some random cultural figure that has varying levels of importance to different people.
rr has introduced a new word “content”
rr has also introduced the term “learning”
by these words I can induct that he means all intelligence is cultural.
by this I can induct that he thinks everyone can with the right exposure solve puzzles with equal propensity
by this I can deduct that he believes anyone can do anything by conditioning alone.
somehow he thinks that with the right training people can solve any novel problem they never seen before
meaning that as long as it is in a book or medium people can learn it without having make it themselves.
–
Anime has a new definition of intelligence:
If you cannot make it by yourself then you don’t have the intelligence to make it even will all resources available to you.
Intelligence = being able to make anything you can make without help
“Content” is interchangeable with “items.” The claim is that of you’re not exposed to X, when you see X on a test you then don’t have the knowledge to draw from to complete the item.
New paper on heritability within groups being uniformative about heritability between groups. This has been argued for decades, so it’s yet another killshot for the hereditarian position.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2319496121
See also these two, arguing that The Bell Curve provided no valid evidence that genes influence IQ between groups, and that the hereditarian theory can’t be an evolutionary one since it has no evolutionary content. As the kids say today, “It’s Joever.”
https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/jz7ku
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.12.18.572247v1
I scored 23, idk, I felt like I got more right than that. PP can you manually check my answers?
I confirmed you got 23 out of 28. You failed five items: Dr, Wonderful, Lord, Bird and Native American carved in wood.
I see now. I was pretty sure of bird. I would say why, but PP would redact it.
General knowledge about things like these are excellent because it is mostly knowledge everyone can acquire if they have an intellectual predisposition.
it might have 2 do with openness 2 experience as a personality correlate 2 get high scores on this test.
because you retain what you think is important 2 you!
I’m very good at trivial pursuit but my weakest category would probably be culture.
RR is right. If you weren’t raised middle or upper class the chances of you knowing about theatre, ballet, opera and renaissance art is basically zero.
Well as Wechsler said the best questions are those the common man has a chance to acquire
Well,. thats correct but somehow we don’t speak much about another important thing. A “general knowledge” test is not a long-term memory test or a tool to measure a – what?- social alertness.( yes, we all know that any cognitive ability correlates positively with iq, but lets be more specific here) Thus, It’s a sign of , say, cerebral effectiveness – to prioritize certain type of knowledge, to ignore something unimportant and be able to keep something for long and forget the unneeded, not useful . The facts we want to get out a testee should be cordial to our culture , should be parts of important concepts about the world , or important rules of life, or be fundamental to the arts etc. That questions , related to British literature – you remember ? – that names have transcended their initial borders , they are of the same popularity -for ex – here, in russia , and filtered to cinema, television, idioms, jocks, they set some examples , even standards .( haha I did not mean to sound that pathetic )BTW,Happy Easter , everybody
“RR is right. If you weren’t raised middle or upper class the chances of you knowing about theatre, ballet, opera and renaissance art is basically zero.”
Hell has frozen over.
class! and upper class not just middle class!
rr is making progress.
TP is sort-of right here and sort-of not. There exist subcultural spheres within broader culture that may serve to either insulate members against the dissemination of extraneous information or to immerse them in in-group specific knowledge. I suspect for this reason that “high culture” tests overestimate my IQ and “low culture” tests underestimate it. The trick of making a good assessment of GK is to find a proper balance, because it’s likely impossible to find any knowledge item that doesn’t overpredict or underpredict IQ based on affiliation. While this test seemed easy and I have gripes about one or two questions, I think it does a reasonably good job of this.
One thing about this test is that its not cultural capital loaded. Its more tilted towards being an african american than being upper class. Which is what I would have predicted by looking at Puppy.
“If you weren’t raised middle or upper class the chances of you knowing about theatre, ballet, opera and renaissance art is basically zero.”
Anyone who grew up with internet access had the opportunity to do as much aimless reading as he pleased. By 2005, only blacks didn’t have innuhnet.
Look Puppy, I’m not saying the correlation between income and IQ is zero. I never said that. But its nowhere near what you think. Especially outside of the West.
What I would say is that there is a specific type of ‘merchant’ intelligence that some kids have. There was a guy on our course that was a natural entrepreneur. Every else was born to be an employee. But this guy could make money with a pair of shoes and a bar of soap. Jews have this type of intelligence in spades.
I think that type of intelligence is heavily correlated with income and its rarer among gentiles than academic intelligence.
I’m only claiming the correlation is 0.47 which is a moderate correlation not a high one. The correlation between IQ and education is probably a lot higher.
PP what do you think my weakest cognitive abilities are?
I believe I am well rounded in so many aspects that I may not have deficits like other people do!
Your main strength is that you have nothing to lose. Your greatest weakness is that you have nothing to lose.
that’s a remarkable human experience from what I have 2 say. Only way losing begins is by embracing the nihilism of others like others but the path 2 success widens as I find a way 2 embrace myself and my experiences!
so I was right when I said my deficits are nullified by my strengths as well!
So far your weakest area appears to be judgement. That’s not to say your judgement is bad, but it appears to be lower than every other area for which I have data.
So I’m poor at making choices? If this is true how can I minimize or maximize choices I take during specific situations?
would you say I’m above the average 4 this trait or no? I wonder how this quantifies 2 the general population is what I mean.
I think you’re probably above average for the general U.S. population, but not by much. Hard to be more precise because the particular test you took has not been well normed or validated. I’d advise you to seek opinions from a wide variety of smart, educated, older, successful people before making any major life choices. Even quora can be a useful resource.
Which test would best associate itself with judgment? On any given psychometric exam whether it’s here or elsewhere.
Comprehension and practical judgment aren’t the same thing. Nor are social ability and practical social skills. I think my case is very peculiar. I scored 19 SS (which was the lowest VCI result after extended norms, admittedly) on Comprehension as a child. I was diagnosed with autism at age 4. On Simon Baron-Cohen’s “Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test” I get 32/36, which is above the average for neurotypicals, and on the Yale Social Psychology Test (https://yalesurvey.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1XOUyQ4Ux6deFBH) 37/40 or >99.5th %ile. I struggle with eye contact and social phobia, I’ve been a drug addict/alcoholic for several years, and I declined an offer of admission to a great university to do drugs for two years instead because I did not receive an offer from what was in my mind the very best university. Perhaps social intelligence and its actualization are more likely to differ from each other for autists, I’m not sure.
btw what’s up with those WISC-V extended norms? They claim they fit the normal distribution but obviously they don’t since some kids are getting IQs above 200
Regarding interpretation of the Yale test, I have never received any formal instruction in psychology or a related field, which researchers identified as a potential confounding factor.
Thomas Jefferson was almost certainly an autist with high social intelligence and low social skill.
Yeah youre a bit strange to judge cartouche. You have the analytic power and precise wording of autists. But you seem ‘more flexible’ in your thinking.
You admitting you were a lifelong libertarian is a red flag. On the other hand, zero autists are drug addicts or abuse substances.
PP, I’m also curious what you think of the social psychology test in terms of how it relates to Comprehension. According to the WAIS manual, the CO-MR correlation for ages 35:0-44:11 is .51, while according to study data the correlation between RSPM and the Yale test is 0.31. I suspect there’s range restriction here since the Yale test extends to >99.5th percentile below its ceiling while RSPM is widely acknowledged to top out around 125, and these correlations alone don’t provide any evidence that the constructs measured are the same. But prima facie the items appear to be assessing some (rather more abstract) aspect of social cognition.
I just took it now:
“Thanks for completing the quiz. Your score is: 34.
Approximate percentile score: 96.7%
Fantastic! Your score was better than 96.7% of other people’s scores. You have the ability to accurately infer how most people feel, think, and behave in social context without a background or little background in social psychology. In a way, you seem to be very good at capturing human’s ‘social nature’. This skill, which we call social psychological skill, has been linked to intelligence, a willingness to engage in complex thinking, melancholy, and introversion.”
I think it mostly just tests formal knowledge of social psychology more than anything else.
I think the WAIS comprehension subtest requires more insight and creativity. But corrected for reliability, the Yale test might correlate better with Comprehension that with any other WAIS subtest. On the other hand it might correlate best with Information because both require factual knowledge as opposed to Comprehension’s conceptual knowledge
Thanks for completing the quiz. Your score is: 35.
Approximate percentile score: 97.3%
Fantastic! Your score was better than 97.3% of other people’s scores. You have the ability to accurately infer how most people feel, think, and behave in social context without a background or little background in social psychology. In a way, you seem to be very good at capturing human’s ‘social nature’. This skill, which we call social psychological skill, has been linked to intelligence, a willingness to engage in complex thinking, melancholy, and introversion.
I guess all reading blogs and article headlines and pop psychology books and philosophy helped me.
This doesn’t make sense at first blush, but then it does make sense because I don’t like people. That makes me wary of them.
Thanks for completing the quiz. Your score is: 38.
Approximate percentile score: 99.5%
Fantastic! Your score was better than approximately 99.5% of other people’s scores. You have the ability to accurately infer how most people feel, think, and behave in social context without a background or little background in social psychology. In a way, you seem to be very good at capturing human’s ‘social nature’. This skill, which we call social psychological skill, has been linked to intelligence, a willingness to engage in complex thinking, melancholy, and introversion.
I think the WAIS comprehension subtest requires more insight and creativity.
There are aspects of all V(E)CI subtests here, which could muddy the waters. We’ve got the social component of CO, the knowledge component of IN, and the concept formation component of VC/SI. Certainly this test doesn’t require as much problem-solving as Comprehension (so I essentially agree with you, although Comp requires less abstraction). It’s more about generalized behavior patterns. I feel inclined to note that I took it before I had much significant engagement with the HBD-sphere, psychology, or IQ, and within this population it’s likely closer to Comprehension in what it measures (where it’s an interesting coincidence that 19 CO and 37 here yield similar percentile rankings). I don’t think this test is very good at indicating autism, because these truisms about human behavior are precisely the sort of thing Aspies arrive at through “people-watching.”
“The correlation between IQ and education is probably a lot higher.”
I would assume the opposite, esp. in the United States where degrees are given as alms to politically favored minorities.
General knowledge can’t be faked or bestowed as a ‘qualification’.
I’m frankly more impressed by a person’s capacity to make reasonable estimates or to write grammatically than I am by their possession of a bachelor’s degree. The latter has almost no predictive value, esp. when the holder is female or darker than a lunch bag.
”a true Jew can make money out of straw.” Spanish proverb
I’ll do your test later out of interest.
Thanks. It will be interesting to hear what you think of it
Anyway the guy was also blessed with formal academic intelligence as well and qualified as a manufacturing engineer. Hes an MD now in an industrial engineering firm. I’m pretty sure he could make money as an entrepreneur as well though.
Actually I wasn’t born to be an employee hahaha. I’ve been sacked 15 times. You can call me a rebel Puppy. And youre the opposite.
20/28
A good research question is whether the validity of information subtests is going up or down. I bet it’s going up as we regress to monoculture from the collection of niche subcultures we had in the 2010s.
I thought the niche subculture trend was continuing.
You’ll have to take my word for it until the change becomes more perceptible. It’s a consequence of the attention economy being a winner-takes-all popularity contest and more obvious among young people, poor people, and stupid people.
peepee belongs to the niche subculture of psychotic, evil, and retarded black lesbians.
sad.
Mug of Pee belongs to the subculture of racist nepotism hires who scored 400 combined on the SAT three times after months of professional test prep.
“when all else fails LIE!” — PEEPEE
How is it not a lie to call me a black lesbian? Last I heard, black lesbians don’t have Y chromosome, 100% Eurasian known ancestry and pure Aryan facial skeleton.
Hes saying ur a black lesbo mentally. But soon physically I guess.
I sexually identify as [redacted by pp, 2024-03-14]
LOL!
it’s so funny peepee redacted it.
proving she’s a black lesbian.
specficcally peepee is half horn of africa muslim and half afro-caribbean. she was adopted and her mother lied to her.
very sad.
He redacted it himself; that was the joke. But you need a combined SAT above 400 to get it.
Betcha gonna claim pp is lying here, lol. To preempt this, that would be incorrect.
>the joke
>your head
When are you getting the surgery? Are you doing top surgery first or the bottom one? I bet Trudeau ordered the canadian taxpayer to cover it as ‘healthcare’.
When are you getting brain surgery? You keep my Prime Minister’s name out of your mouth.
VomitReact.jpg
I administered the test to a friend orally. 2 of the 17 questions he got right are 2 of the 4 questions I got wrong. Only other psychometric datum I have on him is that he scored in the 95th percentile on the ACT in 2012.
Cool. 95th percentile in the ACT population is a score of 30.
[redacted by pp, 2024-03-14]. What do you see in that bundle of sticks?
I have respect for the office and have great respect for his father. I don’t agree with him on the truckers, immigration or Ukraine.
Knowledge is important in terms of its generality and ability 2 give one a broadened perspective on any given piece of information.
critical thinking is a deeper understanding of that knowledge and being able 2 see the data clearer and thus use knowledge 4 purposes greatly included!
cognition is about overcoming circumstantial evidence and arising at a medium that focuses on application and its derivatives.
I got 23. Didn’t get the [redacted by pp, 2024-03-13] independence one. Think I said the French revolution by mistake.
This test is extremely tilted to americans. Literally zero people outside of america will know the detective one or the native american [redacted by pp, 2024-03-13].
Detective one? So far it’s looking like zero people even in America know the Native American one.
Literally that guy is more famous as a [redacted by pp, 2024-03-14] than a tv star in 99% of the population outside of america.
Also my answer on king [redacted by pp, 2024-03-13] is correct. The [redacted by pp, 2024-03-13] I mentioned is also referred to as king [redacted by pp, 2024-03-13].
It was lord not king. I’m surprised by how hard that one has turned out to be. I must be getting old.
I should get a half point because Lord and King are basically the same thing.
Name and Santo will do terrible on this test and it won’t be a reflection of their intelligence. They just have no chance on some of this stuff.
26/28, answered 27, confident of 27. Could you check my submission to see if there was a typo or something? I’m “Max Schmeling.”
You provided an incorrect answer for Skeleton and left Native American blank. I can’t tell whether your answer to skeleton was a typo or intended
Intended. To sanity-check myself after taking the test I looked up the skeleton one and found [redacted by pp, 2023-03-14] “spare parts” mentioned in that article. Technically both can be true, but I suppose that the keyed answer is “more correct.”
Regarding the Native American question, I feel like this one might have been more appropriate on an older edition of a Wechsler or (considering the more recent adaptation) better in Canada than for Americans. I’m 21 and I’ve never heard of this in my life.
Also, I’m curious what you think about Xavier Jouve’s take on “general knowledge” in JCCES/CCAT. It’s quite different and probably shows more academic bias. I maxed out that subscale on the 2023 edition of JCCES, but I’m not sure it’s a terribly meaningful result owing to academic background.
It’s the third section here: https://www.cogn-iq.org/tests/jcces.php
It is possible that I misinterpreted one of the questions whose answer should be [redacted by pp, 2023-03-14] (depending on [redacted by pp, 2023-03-14] (redact if you please). The phrasing of that one was unclear.
DRichards also made that point.
Could alternatively be this [redacted by pp, 2023-03-14]
pumpkin,
can you tell me who said:
“It doesn’t matter what problems are on the test so long as they are numerous.”
The g factor is supposed to come out of one’s ability to do cognitive tasks in relation to others.That is to say the g factor is the correlation between groups of task that correspond to being ability to do many things. In fact the more g loaded an item it the more likely it is that a person can do the other tasks if their score is high on that factor. Information is g loaded somewhere at 0.73
Given that sampling of tests items in norming will produce items with higher g loadings than others. What is it that makes a person able to do more cognitive tasks than another person in the physiological sense? What makes a brain do more than another brain. I know this will show up on the tests because tasks people cannot do shows a person is not adding to the score but what is the neuroscientific mechanism of being able to complete all tasks?
What I gather is that attention is what is causes people to be able to complete all tasks and attention as a mechanism should be a physiological structure in the brain. To be able to hold things in memory and manipulate one’s internal memory.
I think pumpkin that being able to do things by oneself shows what one is capable of intellectually.
That quote is usually attributed to Binet or Binet & Simon
I know I am taking this as literally as an autist can, but perhaps I should design a test of how far your ejaculate flies over 1000 trials. Maybe there’s a g-factor there. All joking aside, item quality absolutely matters. The only real problem with most research on g is that it is a self-validating (but also self-destructive cycle), insofar as we are so far removed from the first IQ tests that we assume the existence of such a factor on every test and choose items by association. g certainly exists in a neurocognitive sense, but this approach is complete bullshit. I don’t like the WAIS because it is not designed according to any theory of intelligence. I don’t like the SB (although the SB5 is probably the best IQ test in existence right now) because it fails to take IRT into consideration for norming. I don’t like the KBIT because its “g factor” is deliberately distorted by selection bias for items that both show no racial differences and strongly correlate with each other. g-loading can’t actually be compared on a linear scale. g on two different tests does not mean precisely the same thing, and if we were to identify the precise neurological undergirding of what portion of g all tests share, the rank order of quality could very easily change. For instance, I suspect that Kaufman’s tests would show lower true quality than they appear to.
“g certainly exists in a neurocognitive sense”
What evidence exists for this claim?
The shared relationship between all tested domains of cognition and neurologic observables like energy consumption, blood throughput, and brain volume.
Give me some sources.
PP, can you check my answer to the “Lord” item. For your collection of alternative answer, if you, of course, find my answer at least somehow meaningful . In addition: a button “go to the next page” without ffuther option to get back, was something confusing , just IMHO. And yes – it was chaotic jumbo-jumbo to you Ruski, no excuses though. 🙂
I really liked your answer. Not sure if the translation is close enough for it to qualify as correct, but very creative answer.
Eeeh…Did we get each other right? where is no translation. Lord [redacted by pp, 2024-03-31], the ruler of all [redacted by pp, 2024-03-31] , very good guy actually 🙂
Is he considered the ruler of them? If so, then maybe your answer does deserve credit
Do you have a response to the fact that Spearman’s g was falsified and Jensen’s g is an unfalsifiable tautology since he merely renamed g PC1, and since PC1 exists by definition, then Jensen’s g is unfalsifiable. Therefore he changed Spearman’s falsifiable theory (which, again, was falsified a few years after he proposed it) and made it an unfalsifiable tautology. I predict: No response. We also know for a fact that “g” is a consequence of test construction. The physiological talk of g is simply unfounded. It’s just an attempt at reductionism since that’s all hereditarianism really is.
Also Binet unconsciously created a normal distribution on his test, see Roy Nash (1987, 71):
<em>First, then, Binet constructed intelligence as a unitary, functional concept in full knowledge of the fact that such a construction was untenable; second, he assumed a normal distribution for his construct of intelligence; third, he declared to have measured the intelligence despite his clear understanding that he had but collected together a heterogeneous set of items that permitted only the classification of children by level of mental age; and fourth, he asserted a functional relationship between intelligence and attainment that cannot be supported.</em> Roy Nash has one of the best critiques of IQ, but you’re not ready for that.
And the brain reductionism you’re espousing is hilarious.
Need to ban this raging angry ass.
A reply that doesn’t address my comment—how typical of you.
^^^TYPICAL^^^
just more LIES from rr.
>Do you have a response
we can measure what people do
that means we can get an estimate of cognitive ability
that estimate does not need to be perfect,
we have limited samples of what people can do
but then rr, you will say that what people can do is not proof of intellect, you will say intelligence is not possible to gage a range of intelligence by what people can do.
so if intelligence is not possible to know, then we cannot say who has more or less.
it is impossible to know who is smart and who is stupid
we cannot then know who is correct or not
if rr is correct then everyone’s failures is due to moral reasons, not limitations on intellect. but that also means he thinks he is morally superior and morals can be known. he is saying intelligence cannot be known but morals can be. he can blame people for reason such as not being good speller because they don’t have dyslexia but because they don’t try hard enough. dyslexia is brain reductionism and so is not real, dyslexia is a moral failing not born with it.
point is rr has more intelligence or he would not have such ability to read better than me. yet he says this cannot be proven by the logic of his views. he gets 100 dollars an hour and can read anything he wants online, I suppose wikipedia is for poor people only who “choose” to read slow instead of fast. all mental dysfunction or extreme intellectual giftedness is a choice. anything else is reductionism and make you a bad person.
“>Do you have a response”
“I predict: No response”
Well well well. Looks like I was right.
Do you admit that Spearman’s g was falsified and Jensen’s g is an unfalsifiable tautology due to how he renamed PC1 as g? Do you admit that Binet unconsciously constructed his test to form a normal distribution? Do you admit that g is a consequence of test construction? Simple yes or questions, with explanations of course. Take your try.
you want me to admit to something I have no access to
so what you want is an admission of guilt to a moral question.
that is fucked up dude
Libgen exists so what you’re saying is no excuse. The Roy Nash paper I referenced is on libgen. The Jones, Elcock and Tyson quote refers to the question about g and test construction. The below article talks about Spearman’s and Jensen’s g and Schonemann talks about Jensen’s redefining of PC1 as g.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2343
libgen is stealing and i am not a thief like you racerealist
I will read the arxiv paper link instead
It’s not stealing.
The question [redacted by pp, 2023-03-14] independence could have been phrased differently, in my opinion. I answered [redacted by pp, 2023-03-14] because I figured (correctly) that that was what the testmaker was looking for. But that was only when America declared independence. It [redacted by pp, 2023-03-14] independence [redacted by pp, 2023-03-14].
Excellent point. I should check if anyone failed the item for that reason
Thank you. I saw those redactions and realize it was careless of meto reveal information about test questions to prospective test takers. I apologize for that.
No worries. Your feedback was helpful and I will see if this affected anyone’s results.
Yes I thought about the same thing. It made me pause but I just chose the [redacted by pp, 2023-03-14] everyone remembers when thinking generally about [redacted by pp, 2023-03-14] independence.
Generally speaking trivia tests and pub quizzes don’t do ‘trick’ questions. So the ‘official’ answer is always best.
Loaded your greatest strength is being born to an upper middle class family.
Your greatest weakness is that you are schiz and dumb.
How is being schiz or dumb a weakness if a narcissist like you has it.
“How is it not a lie to call me a black lesbian when I AM A BLACK LESBIAN?”
— peepee
Your humor isn’t funny. I don’t appreciate it, and neither does Melo or RR.
Yea very rarely is he funny.
rr says he wants to “abolish whiteness”. NOT funny. just 100% PURE evil.
besides whiteness is immeasurable.
what is the measured object of whiteness?
How triggered are you man?
Answer the question. What is the measured object of whiteness? You keep using this phrase and asking for reperations so answer it.
I didn’t say it was measurable.
what is your response to chang & zhang 2007 demonstrating that whiteness is immeasurable?
nice try peepee but it obviously wasn’t humor.
YOU ARE A BLACK LESBIAN!
FACT!
AND YOU LIE ABOUT IT!
santo posted your picture.
and my humor is funny to all non-retarded people.
If Santo posted a picture of a spider, would you believe I have 8 legs? Grow a brain, dude. Seriously.
I’ll take the test tomorrow.
Oh that will be very interesting. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
good joke peepee.
if it is a joke why haven’t you banned rr.
PP, what are your ideas about hypothetical alien intelligence? I believe that there is a threshold for the development of civilization (which depends on V-NV bias or its equivalent, as well as grasping appendages for tool use) where biological evolution is far surpassed by technological development. Since tool use is a necessary prerequisite of selective pressure towards humanlike intelligence, we should expect most alien species of human intelligence or greater to be roughly comparable to us (with more sophisticated appendages, less intelligence should be required to develop tools; with less sophisticated appendages, there is a lower chance of intelligence developing in the first place). If any alien species is significantly smarter than us, we should expect it to be nonverbally biased, since communication is a prerequisite to civilization. We see this with every human population that evolved its modern intelligence before the advent of civilization (i.e. every group except Ashkenazi Jews). Pick any anchoring point, and the other populations above that point (fixing V and NV both at 100 mean/15 SD) will have NV > V profiles.
I’m concerned that this is a solution to the Fermi paradox. I believe it is impossible to develop AGI without causing mass extinction, that verbal/social intelligence is required not to develop it, and that the most reasonable explanation for Fermi is that other intelligent alien species have evolved sufficiently far away for their von Neumann probes not to have reached us yet.
We see this with every human population that evolved its modern intelligence before the advent of civilization (i.e. every group except Ashkenazi Jews).
Inb4 someone objects with the case of Amerindians. I don’t think we have any reliable and culturally unbiased studies of their verbal ability, and would be surprised if their genetic potential were very distinct from that of East Asians.
Yes getting good data on Native Americans is extremely important because they’re probably our single best estimate of the IQs of Upper Paleolithic Northern Eurasians.
Unfortunately there’s no evidence they are as high as whites let alone East Asians, so that leaves five possibilities:
1) Civilization selected for higher IQ
2) The Americas selected for lower IQ because uncharted territory with animals unadapted to humans making them easy to hunt
3) Northern Eurasia selected for higher IQ because population density increased competition relative to the Americas
4) Norther Eurasia had more mutations for natural selection to choose from because higher population density and proximity to the Middle East, where most races not only trade ideas, but genes.
5) some combination of the above
Option 4 is arguably ruled out by Davide Piffer’s data which shows Native Americans lagging despite him looking only at mutations common to all humans
But theres plenty of data on natives. They are kind of like middle easterners in IQ levels. They have particularly good memories. Especially those near the tundra.
And they’re similar in skin color to Middleeastern. At the group level, IQ seems to correlate almost perfectly with skin color. The only possible exceptions I can think of are the Bushmen who are lighter than other blacks despite possibly being lower IQ and perhaps certain Indian castes who are suspected of high IQ.
So it seems whatever environment (higher latitude) made Native Americans lighter than tropical people also boosted IQ and then whatever environments(farms) made whites and Northeast Asians lighter than Native Americans also selected for more IQ. Some have even speculated that light skin itself causes high IQ but research on albino intelligence is inconsistent & Razib went ballistic at that idea.
I’ll see if I can find the citation, but there’s a study I once stumbled upon where Navajo children who attended an Indian school in the early 1970s were compared to their white counterparts. Their PIQ’s were somewhat higher, while VIQ was lower. This is unsurprising given the limited exposure to complex English reading material.
In fact, PIQ in this study was similar to that of East Asians.
My raw score was 25/28, multiplying the z-score estimate of that by 0.7 (I guess a very rough estimate of the g-loading of this test), and the product of that multiplied again by 15 is close to my FSIQ results.
I admit I guessed on the ‘most complex object’ question, and probably got it right because I inferred from your blog content that my guess was the sort of answer you would endorse.
I enjoy these sorts of posts, just writing this message to tell you they are appreciated, and to brag I guess.
just writing this message to tell you they are appreciated
Thanks. And I appreciate everyone who reads this blog.
PP do you [redacted by pp, 2024-03-16].
Of course not! Like I said, judgement is your Achilles’s heel and that question is an example!
I see. So 2 get better judgment I’d have 2 weigh pros and cons?
because if so Pills intuition as he calls it is merely bad judgment!
peepee IS a green eyed black woman and a lesbian.
FACT!
Wow this is getting embarrassing. I actually feel a bit cruel letting you comment.
I feel embarrassed 4 anyone who posts here tbh. It’s a very destitute place.
many in the LGBTQ+ community have championed Chapman as a queer icon, citing her soulful lyrics and powerful performances as evidence of her potential queerness.
but it would be endlessly FUNNY if you weren’t a black lesbian.
How Tracy Chapman’s ‘Fast Car’ became a lesbian anthem
By Trish Bendix
https://www.intomore.com/culture/how-tracy-chapmans-fast-car-became-a-lesbian-anthem/
Well intelligence can be defined so many ways according 2 RR or it can mean nothing the way I see it!
the sweet spot 4 intelligence is 115 but sometimes it’s tailor fitted 2 an outstanding number of traits let alone personality!
this means that many people can be intelligent in their own way which reminds me of the multiple intelligences there seem 2 be!
Yes I can understand how certain things like that Tracy Chapman song that PP posts about makes him seem like a non-White lesbian.
this blog is filled with self righteous people. I think that’s how the internet is and real life is an example of how life imitates art and vice versa.
the internet is part art part tech.
but you’ll be left behind if you don’t see it.
my biggest strength is sentimentality which sets me apart from my fellow commenters. My biggest weakness is my sentimentality which sets me apart from my fellow humans!
Very conceited that you think you’re more sentimental than others. You are just more open about everything jot and tiddle that goes through your brain (that’s why I call you r-selected). It doesn’t mean you feel more than others.
where is my comment 2 Lurker PP?
Lurker is an evil character and must be told the truth that he is disagreeable and neurotic!
Because I’m not r selected and I’m more open minded than he is and he will criticize me no matter what because he is a soulless inanimate!
I just don’t like the way you want to frame even your negative traits or difficulties in life as actually positive innate characteristics, and hence make yourself into a martyr, and then tell everyone about it, and expect them to just agree with how great you really are.
But definitely this blog would not be the same without our pocket-sized Punjabi Prince.
billiards is physical and it involves a stick and there’s no male physical advantage.
so lesbians are like a moth to a flame.
and they get burned.
men are still the best. because man brain!
I got a 20. That seems to line up with my other scores on Pumpkin’s IQ tests. So around the mid 130’s
I got an 18, so 129.22, almost a 130. Pretty close to PATMA I suppose.
If the crossword test = vocabulary subtest and TAVIS = similarities, then for the VCI we have:
Vocabulary: 17
Similarities: 15
Information: 15
PP, is there possibility of score inflation since I knew the answer to some of the hardest questions (i.e., the skeleton one) but not some of the easier ones (i.e. the [redacted by pp, 2024-03-18] question)?
How would that cause score inflation?
Because I know the answers to the harder questions due to random past exposure while easier answers that everyone has come across do not come to my mind, resulting in me falling prey to the “exposure effect”.
You could argue that you don’t know the easy question due to random lack of exposure. If anything it probably implies you have unusual interests & so don’t pay attention to the same things your peers do. That’s why I tried to make the test as diverse as possible. So it wouldn’t be biased in favor of some experiences over others.
Norms need 2 be changed because people are scoring high.
Yes a second norming is needed
If the norms need to be adjusted because of too many supposed high scores wouldn’t this imply a low g-loading? This seems to playing out similarly to TAVIS which only has g = 0.04.
22/28
17/28 on this one for me. Not a bad test though I feel this favours Americans more than anything even though you yourself are Canadian. Thought I’d get more. I have NEVER heard of Huxtable whatever in my entire life, who IS that lol