Tags
I’ve blogged about this before but I wanted to revisit it now that I have better data.
Harvard undergrads 1991: SAT IQ 147; expected WAIS IQ 129
Harvard undergrads from the class of 1995 (and thus took their SATs around 1991, had a mean SAT score of 1390. National norm studies suggest that if all American 17-year-olds, not just the college-bound elite, had taken the SAT in this era, the mean would have been 787 with a standard deviation (SD) of 193. Thus by general population standards, 1390 was +3.12 or IQ 147 (U.S. norms); 147 (white norms).
However because Harvard students were selected by SAT scores, they were selected in part for SAT overperformance. We saw this with Dartmouth students who scored only about 61% as well on the WAIS IQ test as they did on the SAT. Assuming the same would have happened to Harvard students circa 1991, instead of scoring 47 points above the U.S. mean, on the WAIS they’d score 47(0.61) = 29, so IQ 129 (U.S. norms); IQ 128 (white norms). Indeed a study by Harvard scholar Shelley H Carson found that in the early 21st century, Harvard students averaged around 130 IQ on the abbreviated WAIS-R and that was BEFORE deductions for inflated norms.
Harvard Law students 1980s: LSAT IQ 152; Expected WAIS IQ 137
I could not find the mean LSAT scores of Harvard Law students from the same era, but I did find a source (see table 7 of this paper) that the top 19 law schools in the 1980s had mean LSAT scores of 40 to 45 out of 48. It is likely that Harvard Law was the law school with a 45 point mean. My own preliminary research suggests that a 45 out of 48 on the 1980s LSAT equated to an IQ of 152 (U.S. norms); IQ 152 (white norms).
They too would regress to the mean except instead of regressing to the general U.S. mean of 100, LSAT takers are pre-selected by university so they would have regressed to the much higher mean of LSAT takers which would have been 116.
- Average Harvard Law student WAIS IQ = (LSAT IQ – 116)(0.61) + 116
- Average Harvard Law student WAIS IQ = (152 – 116)(0.61) + 116
- Average Harvard Law student WAIS IQ = (36)(0.61) + 116
- Average Harvard Law student WAIS IQ = 138 (U.S. noms); 137 (white norms)
Some readers might argue that if the WAIS-SAT correlation is 0.61, the WAIS-LSAT correlation should be lower, given it’s a more restricted sample, however surprisingly, people who take graduate school admission tests appear to be at least as variable as the general population.
Some readers may wonder why I regress Harvard Law students to the LSAT population when I don’t regress Harvard undergrads to the SAT population but rather the general population. The reason is, above about the top 1%, all members of the general population took the SAT, so regressing them to the SAT population would have been redundant.
Conclusion
Even though the Harvard Law > Harvard undergrad IQ gap was only 5 points when measured by the tests used to select them respectively (LSAT IQ 152 vs SAT IQ 147); the gap should nearly double if they were given a test independent of the admission process (WAIS IQ 137 vs WAIS IQ 128). This is a reminder that we should never measure the IQ of a group by the test used to select them and consistent with the general rule that law students are about 10 IQ points smarter than undergrads, though unlike Harvard, at a typical university circa 1990, the respective scores would have been around 120 vs 110.
Pumpkin Person 
I am no expert in math, but I discovered that there’s a 50% chance of getting your IQ score within a range of 10 points above or below your initial score. Z = 0.6745
so, confidence interval 50% is
128 CI of 118 to 138
137 CI of 127 to 147
I don’t know the math well enough though.
I doubt that regression can tell us everything without accounting for the coefficient r squared on the wais 0.71 = 0.50
There needs to be one for the LSAT and SAT also
I guess that if it were 0.50 then only 0.25 is explained by both wais and sat combined. 75% would not be known regarding correlated effects.
This missing correlation tells us that ones IQ can go up or down by a margin of 75% unknown variance.
i want THAT inside me!
and i thought: why is she so much sexier than the average south asian woman? and then i learned she was half irish. OF COURSE!
It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia | The D.E.N.N.I.S. SYSTEM – Season 5 Ep. 10 Highlight | FXX (youtube.com)
^^^what peepee looks like^^^
That just looks like an average Latina.
Make america Native American again
Another thing to take account of is that according to this formula Bill Gates would be expected to get an IQ of 149 on the wais
Bill went to Harvard and dropped out. Was the average Harvard student still on average 116 on the wais at that time?
Elon at 1400 would get 130
I am not saying this is correct but it does come into question why these tests have such variation between two equally capable people?
The reason Harvard’s average regresses to the mean is because they were selected for overperforming on the SAT so by definition, their average SAT was an overachievement.
Gates and Musk were selected for overachieving at life, so their IQs on the SAT are already regressed to the mean. They would not further regress on the WAIS or if they did, they would regress to their SAT mean in which case Musk would “regress” up.
ok, but overall you need to apply the same standards for all test takers.
Gates was 1590 so everyone at that level is not a centi billionaire – they would have a 170 SAT IQ but 149 wais IQ – this is why I am saying you need more than sat and wais scores because that tells you very little of a persons actual IQ, 50% for the wais (0.71 squared) and less for the SAT if we apply it equally to all test takers.
Perhaps you need to update your demographics calculations to include this new data. As I recall there were only 11 factors involved.
ok, but overall you need to apply the same standards for all test takers.
And that standard is an unbiased sample of a person’s brain power.
The SAT is not an unbiased sample of Harvard undergrad IQ because if they didn’t score high on the SAT, they wouldn’t be at Harvard.
In the same way an astronomer can’t use Earth as a sample of planet intelligence, because if there wasn’t intelligent life on Earth, we wouldn’t be asking the question.
VERY VERY hard concept to grasp. Mug of Pee is neurologically incapable of grasping no matter how much tutoring
no, what I meant was that if you formula applies only to people at 1390 but not 1590 then it is a bad formul.
You formula must apply to all sat scores. Which means it cannot tell us the true nature of bills or elons or anyone else’s IQ – and only knowing 50% of someone’s intelligence is not the same as knowing all there intelligence.
If Bill Gates scored 1390 on the SAT I’d be saying his IQ is 147 and if Harvard’s average was 1590 I’d be saying their IQ was 143. It’s not about how HIGH the score is, it’s about whether it was randomly selected or cherry picked.
It’s a bit funny that it is a concept about “selection-for” SAT scores that makes them predict IQ less for those schools that value the SAT more than many other things, because it is so similar to RR’s argument against natural selection being an explanation for specific trait fixation.
I guess the problem is it is practically impossible to measure degree of bias goes into utilizing SAT scores since the sample pool of other schools, other tests, and other measures of intelligence utilized by schools is always imperfect and finite… similar to selection-for a trait vs. happens-to-survive.
The formula you gave pumpkin person requires that a score on the LAST of 1590 regresses to a wais IQ of 149. If this is true then it doesn’t matter whatever else you’re talking about. Either this formula is accurate or it is not.
What you are saying is that SAT IQ and WAIS IQ have a difference of 61% and if true then Cherry picking doesn’t matter, the regression is still 61% unless you got the formula wrong. A ratio is true no matter what ordinals are of the numerator and denominator.
What I am saying is that the wais only tells us 50% of a persons true intelligence so we cannot use the SAT to conclude what a persons true intelligence (IQ) may be.
if you disagree then you believe SAT IQ is the same as a persons true intelligence level?
In basic terms: the SAT/WAIS ratio should only tell us 50% of bills true intelligence level or anyone else.
The formula you gave pumpkin person requires that a score on the LAST of 1590 regresses to a wais IQ of 149. If this is true then it doesn’t matter whatever else you’re talking about. Either this formula is accurate or it is not.
The only relevant info we have about Harvard undergrads is they’re Americans with high SAT scores so it makes sense to regress them to the U.S. mean, and doing so correctly predicts their IQ.
If all we knew about Gates was his SAT score it would make sense to regress him to the U.S. mean, but since we know a priori that he’s the polar opposite of the average American, not regressing at all makes more sense than regressing to the wrong mean.
What you are saying is that SAT IQ and WAIS IQ have a difference of 61% and if true then Cherry picking doesn’t matter, the regression is still 61% unless you got the formula wrong. A ratio is true no matter what ordinals are of the numerator and denominator.
No only high SAT people who were identified BECAUSE they have high SAT scores will regress precipitously to the mean on the WAIS. Equally high SAT people who were identified by some other criteria would not on average.
In basic terms: the SAT/WAIS ratio should only tell us 50% of bills true intelligence level or anyone else.
Let’s say the WAIS has a g loading of 0.87 and the SAT has a g loading of 0.74 and the two tests share virtually no non-g content. This would result in a WAIS-SAT correlation of about 0.6, even though both tests correlate much better than that with general intelligence.
yes, if the criteria is limited then we get weaker overall accuracy. That is what statistics is all about. Add more data then the probability of correct prediction increases. More samples and more diverse variables to loading of all factors.
bill has money and took the SAT and other things.
more should be added like demographics, what job you have where you live, height weight, school zone.
I am not a mathematician but it interests me how it all works together. Prediction requires knowledge most companies seek by collecting as much data as possible on people. And IQ happens to predictable based on behavior not just paper tests anymore.
muh selected n shit is true under SPECIFIC circumstances. but US college admissions and the SAT are NOT those circumstances.
peepee is what happens when incredibly bad at math pipo apply some rule they learned or noticed without be unnuhstanin it.
muh selected n shit is true under SPECIFIC circumstances. but US college admissions and the SAT are NOT those circumstances.
Give an example where it would be true
AN example:
if you gave a bajillion pipo 10 tests (all of which were positively correlated with one another) and selected the top 1% of scores on test #10, then the correlation of this top 1%’s scores with its scores on test #3 would be LESS than that of the population as a whole.
DUH!
then the correlation of this top 1%’s scores with its scores on test #3 would be LESS than that of the population as a whole.
Correlations are almost always smaller in the top 1% than in the full distribution. That’s just range restriction; nothing to do with selection bias
LESS EVEN WITH CORRECTION FOR RESTRICTION OF RANGE!
i should’ve said that!
“they’re not mutually exclusive” = ENTIRELY taken care of by the regression for the population as a whole. so at the high end the gap between score on test #10 and #3 is greater.
DUH!
peepee: but muh selected n shit.
mugabe: muh selected n shit = super regression = regression greater than that of the population as a whole = confusion between…
WITH
2. those who have the highest scores on test #10.
AGAIN this is what hapens with low PIQ pipo like peepee with ceiling gypsy PIQ.
SAD!
Those who were selected BECAUSE they had the highest score on test #10 will be less intelligent than those who were selected BEFORE they had the highest score on test #9, assuming both tests are equally valid.
If Harvard is mostly Jewish then the regression of 60% is because of lower PIQ on the wais for jews. The regression would be lower for non Jews taking the SAT – you cannot estimate the regression for the general public SAT population from the Harvard population.
That is of course that the V > P cancelled out on the SAT and WAIS (V > M)
I think they’re 25% Jewish. Also we see almost as much regression when Ivy league undergrads take the LSAT (which has no Performance subtests) as we do when they take the WAIS. That’s why Yale Law was forced to recruit JD vance from a crappy school, not enough high LSAT people among elite undergrads because all their psychometric luck was spent on the SAT.
Those who were selected BECAUSE they had the highest score on test #10 will be less intelligent than those who were selected BEFORE they had the highest score on test #9, assuming both tests are equally valid.
which is EXACTLY NOT the way college admissions work.
autism is sad.
The only g loaded criterion by which Ivy League students are selected is the SAT. None of the other stuff (race, rich parents, grades, leadership, sports) is significantly positively g loaded once SAT scores are already factored in which is why students selected to be around +3 SD on the SAT regress to about +2 SD or less, on the LSAT, the WAIS, and probably every other test that isn’t identical in content to the SAT.
^^^LIES^^^
0.5% of the general population should score 1400 on the SAT, this is equivalent to 40,000 people.
If Harvard had 20,000 students in 2020 then it seems there’s a missing criteria for what is needed to determine IQ
Not all high level students go to Harvard or ivy League school.
Most people with high IQ would not attend meaning they get his SAT score but go to mediocre schools.
Chris langan went to the Montana university. His SAT should regress the SAT up not down.
This should mean confidence interval should be added to the regression.
otherwise high IQ people in general population who get low SAT score fudge the numbers of what can be predictable.
also the WAIS is still not good at predicting intelligence. This is the reason it was designed with a confidence interval.
putting it in words for low PIQ, low spatial, high fake gypsy-IQ pipo like peepee:
it may be the high end of the SAT and the high end of the WAIS are measuring different things. whereas the low ends of both are measuring the same thing.
this doesn’t mean one is measuring the right thing and the other the wrong thing or nothing at all. it may just mean they are measuring different things.
peepee is a total nazi when it comes to cognitive diversity. FACT!
SAT could be divided into subtests the way WAIS has subtests. That would mean you need a correlation matrix to factor all subtests together. As in factor analysis a four factor model on wais would not be the two factors of math/verbal on SAT – in total there would be 6 factors? That would calculate (g)
it’s OBVIOUS at this point that peepee is a GIANT OBESE negress.
actually via another interpretation of what i said the top 1% on test #10 would have EXACTLY THE SAME correlation corrected for restriction of range as the population as a whole.
what is true (but beyonf peepee’s tiny shitholer brain to unnuhstan) is if there were 100 tests and everyone was selected by his single best test score then precipitous regression on any one random test.
BUT obvious to non-retarded pipo, the SAT is one test. AND elite uni admits are NOT pipo whose highest score out of 100 tests was on the SAT.
for example: if you’re retarded but your highest score is on the SAT then your SAT score still sucks and you’re not admitted to harvard.
sad.
MUH SELECTION N SHIT IS A CONFUSION BETWEEN:
1. SELECTION OF PIPO WITH THE HIGHEST SCORE ON TEST #100.
AND
2. SELECTION OF PIPO WHOSE HIGHEST SCORE IS ON TEST #100.
THIS CONFUSION CONFIRMS THAT PEEPEE’S IQ IS AT MOST NEGATIVE 4 SDs FROM THE MEAN AND THAT PEEPEE IS BLACK.
SAD.
They’re not mutually exclusive, dumb-dumb. On the contrary, people whose highest score is test #100 will be over-represented among people with the highest score on test#100. That’s the whole point.
if there are 100 tests they are basically mutually exclusive. the overlap is very small.
AND this is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the point that THIS IS NOT THE WAY COLLEGE ADMISSIONS WORKS.
dum dum!
peepee’s theme song:
Beck – Loser (Official Music Video) – YouTube
THAT’S THE WHOLE NON-POINT!
THAT’S NOT THE WAY COLLEGE ADMISSIONS WORK!
It’s precisely how they work. No people don’t take 100 tests but if they did, those who had their highest score on the SAT would be dramatically over represented among Harvard undergrads & those who had their lowest score on the ŠAT woůld be virtually absent
^^^LIE^^^
PEEPEE’S RETARDATION TRIGGERS ME.
I NEED A SAFE SPACE FROM PEEPEE’S RETARDATION.
It’s precisely how they work. No people don’t take 100 tests but if they did, those who had their highest score on the SAT would be dramatically over represented among Harvard undergrads & those who had their lowest score on the ŠAT woůld be virtually absent
TOTALLY IRRELEVANT JIVE!
PEEPEE SHOULD BE A RAPPER INSTEAD OF A BLOGGER.
SAD!
if you have a population of 1000 people randomly chosen among white and 100 tests. It’s really possible that you would get 10 people who end first in those 100 tests. It won’t be the same guy 100 times. But it won’t be 100 people either. Let’s say 10 gets #1 at least one time.
if you select the top 0,1% with just one random test, on average, he will be at 1 in 200 instead of 1 in 1000. You already got a regression from 147 to 138 IQ.
It doesn’t mean than on average those 10 are not very good among with the other 99 other tests, but it means that selecting them only on one test will not give you a perfect ranking. And the real level of those people that have been selected will be biased up by the mere fact of being selected by one peculiar test.
so it’s doesn’t mean SAT is bad. Obviously the more the test correlates with other tests, the less regression you will get. And the fact that universities also select students based on their GPA wich is a kind of second IQ test, independent of SAT, rends the selection more robust. But there will always be some kind of regression because of the selection.
If you select them by GPA only and then administer them one test, let’s say SAT, or just unmask their result you didn’t know about b4, then, they would be no regression.
i think it’s not that hard to understand …
i think it’s not that hard to understand …
exactly! that’s why i unnuhstan it and peepee doesn’t. because peepee is literally retarded.
in math what you’d ask is:
what is E(test #3|test #10 AND that test #10 is the MAXIMUM/HIGHEST score of all tests 1 through 10)?
i don’t even know if that has an analytic solution. but i could appproximate it in excel IF PEEPEE SHARES HER FULLSCALE ETHNICITY.
You’re going to have to take some tests if you want my full-scale ethnicity
I CAN’T TELL IF YOU’VE TOLD ME YOUR FULLSCALE ETHNICITY UNTIL YOU POST IT AS AN ARTICLE.
If you agree to take several tests, I would include that info in an article.
in fact SUPERFICIALLY elite college admissions in the US are more like 150% * (those who score highest) + -50% * (those whose highest score is on the SAT).
that is, there’re a shit ton of additional selection criteria all of which may (or may not) correlate with g, be g loaded.
The other criteria are race (negatively correlated with g) and grades (a proxy for how prepared you were for the SAT & thus independently selects for lower g) and rich family (a proxy for unfair advantage on the SAT & thus negatively independently correlated with g). So if anything Ivy League students are almost dumber than non-Ivy League students with the same SAT.
This would be cancelled out by low SES students with IQ higher than sat scores.
so a 155 student may score lower on the SAT than a 125 student but this raises the IQ of the group in total.
it depends on who is being admitted, not just the rich kids but poor kids as well?
Not many poor kids get admitted; mostly rich kids, black kids, & rich black kids.
Would you say that Harvards SAT and WAIS correlation is representative of national scores?
If we had samples of all 17 year olds with both an SAT score and WAIS score, would the correlation change?
1% of kids took the SAT = 135 combined with average SAT score would give a better mot accurate formula. Because Harvard is not representative of all test takers. Sadly would say the regression is less than supposed.
Becsuse Ivy league kids score 60% as well on wais as they do on ŠAT i estiˇate the 2 těsts would correlate 0.6 if all 17-year old Americans took both but that’s just an estimate that assumes a constant regression slope up to at least the top 0.5%
in the shitnited states the SAT and other standardized tests are WAY less important than they are in every other country except hockeystan.
mugabe: peepee is correct that this means elite admits are selected for being DUMBER than their test scores predict. BUT she is WRONG that this is a mathematical fact. IT’S AN EMPIRICAL FACT! and totally NOT obvious if all you rely on is math/stats.
I think I understand what sadly is trying to convey. Let’s say you studying Shakespeare as a major and not chemistry. Your g loaded test will have low correlation between the tests not because they aren’t correlated but because the selection is determined by English vs stem. A good English students IQ should not regress because the fail a chemistry exam. IQ should be calculated by the relationships to peers.
I scored 1470 on the SAT and 19 on the ACT – 142 and 97 respectfully in IQ
These tests don’t have a population correlation but on the individual level comparison is useless.
So SAT does not regress to WAIS because English doesn’t regress to chemistry. That is the analogy I would use. Tests measure different things. So 0.61 is not the regression coefficient but the g loading between SAT and WAIS
Of course there is no such thing as “regression” in an absolute sense to another more general form of intelligence or a different test unless you already posit the existence of a general form of intelligence that is expressed and added in different ways, and understand that regression to another test is simply a estimation based on this assumption.
I think I understand what sadly is trying to convey.
^^ lol
It’s the user known as Mugabe BTW
A reduction of 60% is 125 which is half way between 97 and 143
This is the same as my WISC score.
Cool, your Wechsler score would have fallen right on the estimated regression line
when i applied to so many schools which sent me applications because my PSAT or first SAT…
i scored HIGHER than the mean and median on the SAT. ACT, and CBATs than those they admitted for every such school.
i was NOT admitted.
this is an example of SELECTION.
and i’m NOT alone.
when that happens it’s easy to get paranoid.
BUT NO! the EXACT same and WORSE has happened to “genetically superior pipo”.
AND in this age of anti-white racism…
Vance was SUPER LUCKY to be admitted to (((yale law school))).
(((espenshade))) has documented this (beyond a reasonable doubt).
anti-white racism is at least 2x as great as all others at elite unis.
peepee: but if you vote for trump dat mean you is wytrash n shit because liz cheney.
peepee is ARAID TO POST THIS:
IMPORT THE THIRD WORLD BECOME THE THIRD WORLD! FACT! THANKS JEWS!
It would be very very interesting looking at the admissions process of Israeli universities.
interesting
puppy post a poll: who would win a debate where the candidates can interject each other – Oprah or vance.
we can even do a companion blog post. I will argue for vance and you can argue for the gorilla with a wig.
Oprah would eat him alive, just like she did the girl who denied Toni Morrison was a good author.
It wouldn’t be a fair fight:
let’s poll it.
so does this post imply obama (and other harvard law aa blacks) had a higher iq than the average Harford undergraduate?
we know 50% of the undergrads at Harford are ashkenazim. So basically I would bet on the undergrad being smarter.
Did you forget how to spell Harvard? Jewish undergrads would score high IQ than black law students, but overall law students would score higher than undergrads.
ok. You know it’s a kind of nonsense to compare harvard law and harvard undergrads when maybe 50% of everyone involved is AA, nepotism/legacies and ‘athletes’. It would be more interesting of you could compare jd vance people with a similar gentile harvard undergraduate.
Anyways ted cruz won debate competitions and has a law degree and cant really talk properly.
Debating is about personality more than iq. Trump is not academically gifted but crushed 16 other republicans and all the dem candidates. I mean the debate with biden forced biden out.
trump doesn’t even do debate prep. He just shoots from the hip.
my guess is that if vance debated Oprah, Oprah would press the emergency ‘racism!’ Button in about 5 minutes and moderators would pile on and ask vance if he has issues with blacks.
at that point vance could go down the trump high social iq route and troll them or he can play tennis and talk about how much he loves blacks.
I don’t think 99% of people have the cognitive ability to think on the fly and shoot from the hip like trump. They want spreadsheets and rehearsed speeches and poll tested sentences. They don’t have intuition.
No Oprah would just blow him off the stage. It would be like a toddler trying to fight a tornado. She’s a geological force. She would just overpower hum verbally and vocally. She’s funnier, more rhetorically creative and has more stamina and energy.
She would press the ‘racism’ ejector seat button within minutes.
Or vance could ask her about her friends….
Dude, his running mate is one of those friends.
Zero evidence trump raped women or did anything close to Oprahs friends.
He’s been accused by dozens of women, is on tape saying he grabs women by the pussy and was found liable in civil court. Granted he was never found guilty in criminal court like Weinstein but then Weinstein lacked Trump’s wealth, power & social IQ to get away with things. And even Weinstein’s convictions are getting overturned.
Btw Trump agrees with me about the kids of talented people regressing to the mean:
anyone following this post diddy stuff?
as a PhD in celeb gossip this stuff is juicy!
Apparently Jay Z & Beyonce threatened legal action against Pierce Morgan over this interview with Jaguar Wright:
I was thinking uni of Chicago for an mba here in London. Obviously Chicago econ is autism on steroids but still a great brand.
i wouldn’t if london. because it’s just the name. but i would if it were actually in chicago.
i mean some british school is better.
peepee didn’t get the ox-ford, cam-bridge, har-ford.
but while “ford” is a synonym for “bridge”…
Harvard is an English surname derived from the Old English personal name “Hereweard,” which is made up of the elements “here,” meaning army, and “weard,” meaning guard12345. The surname is cognate with Hereward, an Old English name1.
success at every single thing is g-loaded. the ONLY EXCEPTION is daytime talk show host.
sad.
peepee: no because rr is right.
mugabe: but you’ve said rr is wrong.
peepee: no because i’m a woman and i can’t not contradict myself.
mugabe: sad.
All success is g loaded but some success contains so much non-g variance that including it subtracts rather than adds to the signál to noise ratio
^^^ANTI-MATH^^^
it depends what the weights are and how the other factors are included.
it’s math. peepee thinks math is heterosexist and racist.
and she has ZERO memory.
so once again muh selected n shit has been PROVEN retarded and peepee will forget it.
SAD!
STILL WAITING FOR PEEPEE SULLSCALE ETHNICITY!
it depends what the weights are
The weights are such that they contribute nothing to IQ selection otherwise I wouldn’t need my selection theory to explain why they regress so much on the LSAT and WAIS. In fact elite schools don’t want to select too aggressively for IQ because that will cause the affirmative action students to fall even further behind.
FULLSCALE ETHNICITY…
STILL WAITING!
Full-scale ethnicity will be your reward for taking a full-scale IQ test
Lol. Who gives a shit what ethnicity Pumpkin is? Get a life.
vance’s chirren will be sexier than their parents. the south asian european mix is the best mix. for example michell khare. she sloved the rubics cube in less than 60s in one week of practice. she was so sad she cried because chess is way harder than rubic’s cube. 8 months later she finally achieved a 1000 elo. mugabe’ is 2000. sad. but she’s still very sexy. and half irish!
“vance’s chirren will be sexier than their parents”
As is the case for most mixed-race children.
Another argument for forced miscegenation.
Make America beautiful again.
I find it interesting that the most intelligent Republican has brown kids despite being from a stereotypically more tribal background As I’ve been trying to tell Pill for years, the higher the IQ, the less racist
The opposite. The high The iq The more racist. Ie. You would be considered a racist puppy by 99% of the mainstream for your views.
I’m aware
BUT super duper sooper dooper SADLY…
michelle khare is married to a WYGUY.
if aa was truly totally banned the ivy league would literally have zero blacks.
It would drop from 14% to about 1%
Looks like Oprah book club author Ta-Nahisi Coats joins the long list of blacks who are bravely speaking out about Gaza. The EXACT opposite of pill’s theory that blacks are Jewish puppets. Maybe they are when it comes to the anti-White lobby but not when it comes to the anti-Muslim lobby:
Well good for him. But that’s 1 in a million.
prediction: peepee plays chess 24/7 for a year and i still beat her.
the ceiling for chess rating for pipo who don’t study the game and aren’t capablanca = mugabe’s rating
it’s just entertainment for me.
peepee: but i can estimate your IQ by your chess rating.
mugabe: michelle khare graduated from dartmouth, an ivy league school, and after 8 months and crying she still sucked…supposedly.
^^^I AM EXPERT ON PSYCHOMETRICS LOOKALIKE^^^
If you’re rating is truly that high then I’m impressed. When I was young I thought chess was the BEST measure of intelligence because it’s all about adapting a constantly changing board to your advantage. It took me a long time to understand why so many high IQ people suck at it & I still don’t fully get it.
I always thought the best moves were the ones that had an advantage at the beginning. But then I could not think past the middle of the game.
The real advantage is looking at the end moves. And knowing where you’re opponent will go next. Are they trying to win this or that way and you go in the other direction to confuse them well letting them think they are winning.
After studying many chess players you learn how they think.
https://tenor.com/view/yu-gi-oh-your-move-gif-8070190
but muh selected n shit!
So, Mugabe tends to only comment when he’s drunk, so he must be on a yuge bender right now.
It’s kind of sad.
Do you have kids Mugabe?
I don’t think he does, and yes it is kind of sad. Sadly
At least he makes sense when drunk though still.
Chris langan more or less has the exact same opinions as me. I’m a racist and a lunatic and a psychopath. So what is chris puppy? Mind controlled? Dementia? What’s the excuse there for thinking the wrong thoughts.
The entire effect size of “liberals” > “conservatives” in terms of IQ is attributable to 2 basic things:
The higher your IQ, the less likely you are to live in the real world (interact with third-world minorities on a regular basis).
The shorter, uglier, weaker, more effeminate, and more mentally ill you are, the more likely you are to be liberal (the smart ones among such people generally gravitate towards the left because they realize being cuckss is the only way to compete in the sexual marketplace and get laid). Chris is a strapping basso profundo who was too neurotypical to be embraced by Jewish spergs in the academy, so he entered the real world. Moreover, he resents the people who resented him. Plus he may be grifting a little bit.
Why are Jewish people “liberal”? They’re afraid of so-called white people (understandably).
They, via usury and “remember what words mean” intelligence, more or less decide who does and who doesn’t make it in academia and MSM.
Whom do they select? Their coethnics (who instinctively understand what to do), dorky white people amenable to cuckoldry, and non-white pawns.
It is what it is.
It was fun while it lasted!
Jews and blacks both fear white people so they both have intelligent reasons for being liberal. Some white liberals are dorky cucks who have been fooled by Jews, but others are just so morally evolved they want to help less fortunate races out of a sense of noblesse oblige.
The true cucks who have been fooled by a small minority of extremist Jews were the Americans who encouraged their fellow citizens to die in Iraq, sacrificing so much of America’s blood, treasure, security, and prestige in the process. Actually being tricked into pushing someone eles’s war makes you much more of a dupe than a dorky liberal who merely had their kindness and tolerance used against them since at least the latter was doing something generous for the less fortunate.
The higher your IQ, the less likely you are to live in the real world
True. High IQ people only interact with the best and brightest minorities so it’s not surprising they would deny HBD.
But high IQ people are also less prone to disgust, violence, religion, selfishness & psychopathy which are all arguably conservative traits.
But Langan is a good case study in what happens if you put a high IQ mind in a working class body and culture. Even though he’s only one data point, he’s such an extreme one that he can’t be dismissed.
This is a bad take.
High IQ people are less racist because they understand that generalizing someone based on their ethnicity is dumb.
I grew up around the worst and dumbest of minorities but didn’t develop that “grrrr black people dumb” mentality.
That doesn’t mean i cant be subject to tribalism, it just means I’m self aware enough to recognize it and fight it.
Racists are LESS evolved.
To Trump’s credit, he’s a HUGE HBDer:
puppy is confusing medium iq people or aspergers people with high iq people.
if you have autism you vote for macron or a neoliberal open borders person every single election. If you’re a medium person it’s good ol cnn and nyt-verse type mind control. Any black candidate gets your vote.
I’m talking specifically about people like chris who have basic social intelligence as well as high academic intelligence.
Yeah you’re right thou about chris being a weird example of a working class guy with a genius intellect.
if you have autism you vote for macron or a neoliberal open borders person every single election.
Or if you’re just a really nice person who has empathy for refugees & doesn’t mind sharing your country with them because you’re not HBD aware.
Neoliberals aren’t nice people dumbass. They may be even worse than neocons who at least give charity to poor jews. Wow. 7 years and you can’t tell left from right.
Wow, 9 years and you can’t even tell I’m right and you’re wrong. Neoliberals gave us health care you MORON! That’s pretty nice.
Look, both parties have been duped by high IQ gypsies, but Democrats have been duped into helping refugees and blacks while Republicans have been duped into bombing Muslims. Getting duped into doing bad things requires lower IQ than being duped into doing nice things, hence white Democrats have higher IQs than White Republicans.
I doubt Langan is grifting perse. It’s probably the fact that he recognizes that he is one of the smartest people alive, White, and what is happening to Whites, modern society and it’s future, and so unlike many Nationalists who have their own theories about the world or might be considered to “take the accomplishments of others of the same race because they have none of their own”, Langan probably uses his own lack of success as evidence to others and himself of an anti-White anti-free thought conspiracy/system rather than simply whining about his failures. He knows of all people, he has the right to criticize the system, and uses that to lend credence to the criticisms of the system by others that he agrees with.
puppy….I don’t think you understand what the difference between liberal and neoliberal is.
…they’re opposites…
Neoliberal has two definitions:
Definition 1: private sector solutions. Here the liberal in neoliberal means freedom of makets
Definition 2: A new liberal (aka corporate Democrat)
By the first definition neoliberal is the opposite of liberal (sort of). By the second definition it’s just a watered down liberal. By either definition Obamacare is neoliberal.
But what separates high IQ from even higher IQ is that the latter isn’t vulnerable to the conformist careerism and status-signaling that afflicts high IQ libtards.
And they lack liberals’ disgust for people with the conservative traits you mentioned.
So they’re able to empathize with both groups and extract truth from both perspectives.
In 1991 a score of 184 is 53 per SAT IQ and 72 per WAIS IQ
-3.12 SD (787 – 603) = 184
1600 is 163 which is 138 WAIS given 0.6 regression.
0 then on the SAT is IQ 63 WAIS
There is no score below 200 on the SAT – I am confused?
2006 SAT
Mean 1022
SD 166
IQ = 45 + 0.054(SAT)
2006 ACT
IQ = 56 + 2.1(ACT)
The system failed chris. Puppy thinks every single genius iq person is born to upper class parents like bill gates and elon musk. His model of social darwinism is bust. Typical libertarian retardation.
No I think that just as the average one in a million income person (multi-billionaires) will regress to top 1% IQ (IQ 135), the average one in a million IQ person (IQ 170+) will regress to top 1% income (a few hundred thousand a year). Gates and Langan just happen to be the extreme outliers way above and below their expected income level respectively.
Do you think more upper class people have genius babies than working class people? (Ignore the blacks when answering this q)
Yes. Per capita.
I saw kamala doing a campaign rally with dick cheney the other day….I physically sighed for about 20 seconds.
if rubin wants her to win, why is he forcing her to run as george bush circa 2000 or nikki haley?
nikki haley can only get 20% of republican voters. How would she get more than 2% of dem ones?
I bet kamala will now say israel is more important than america. Just watch.
I genuinely wonder what the ivy league iq would be without the AA, legacy, gifts and athletes.
The ashkenazi. Would go down a small bit but it would be more than made up with people like jd vance or chris langan.
so a glib answer would be that it would look like mit. Actually mit is basically a stem college so I don’t think it’s comparable. It’s like imperial here in the uk.
imperial are in the top 3 in the uk in terms of iq to be sure. .maybe half their students are Asians.
UK oxbridge is comparable to ivy league. They don’t do AA, legacies, donors kids or much athletes.
maybe it would be the same as that. But they do a kind of semi rigged thing with private schools where basically the private schools teach and prep you for oxbridge but superficially you still have to have high grades.
any good Marxist knows elite select to reproduce themselves. No such thing as meritocracy. Puppy is crying into his ayn rand novel.
SES IQ = 0.97395[log(net worth) • 10 + 40]
Elon Musk 159
Oprah 133
Made a calculation error
Musk = 150
^^^AIDS^^^
AIDS = AUTISTIC RETARDATION DISORDER
mugabe: i unnuhstan muh selected n shit better than peepee. peepee is so retarded she doesn’t even unnuhstan her own jive.
peepee: but muh selected n shit.
mugabe: those who score highest or would have scored highest on the SAT vs those admitted to elite american unis. the LATTER is SUPERIOR to a random sample of the former. AND thus one sees that the wechsler is just a shitty fake IQ test which peepee refuses to take unless administered by a gypsy. SAD!
peepee: but muh selected n shit.
^^genetic^^
peepee is so UTTERLY AUTISTIC AND RETARDED she thinks that of those pipo whose SAT is among the highest or would have been the highest elite college admits are dumber than a random sample of such pipo. PEEPEE HAS NO CLUE AS TO HOW ADMISSIONS WORK .
peepee: but muh selected n shit!
peepee is ashamed of being a nigger. sad.
No, I’m saying if elite colleges had the same SAT scores, but students were admitted BEFORE their SAT scores were known, the students would not regress so much on the WAIS and LSAT.
^^^jive^^^
The fact that you call it jive shows you fundamentally don’t understand the concept. The reason for the regression is when you select the best SAT scores, you are creating an unnatural group where 90% of people got lucky on the SAT and only 10% got unlucky. Then when they take the WAIS and LSAT, and luck is normally distribute such that 50% got lucky and 50% got unlucky, of course there’s massive regression to the mean.
By identifying the group BEFORE you know their SAT scores, you get a much less skewed luck distribution and avoid significant regression.
Girl at subway gave me a free cookie and winked at me.
She must want me to give her some mixed babies.
Fuck I love those cookies.
I’m guessing melo is deeply unattractive to most women. Someone with inferiority issues. Someone with a crappy job. Someone with gender identity issues. It’s all the boxes ticked for loser.
blitz chess at least is 100% non-verbal IQ.
mugabe is as good at this as anyone can be unless he has a special ability at chess or studies the game.
mugabe knows what the sicilian defense is but he doesn’t know what the najdorf or dragon variations are because he’s never studied the game like that. he’s just heard of these.
and yes mugabe’s blitz rating on chess.com or lichess has equated to a > 2000 elo.
again the point is that’s as good as you can get if you’re not a freak or if you don’t take it seriously. taking chess seriously is depressing.
in my school the best chess players were the smart kids but also two dumb kids. and one of those dumb kids was also a great soccer player and the other was freakishly strong for his apparent muscle mass.
mugabe was always at most the second best chess player. but while he remained #2 the #1s changed.
mugabe also finished #2 in the fourth grade checkers tournament. behind a super dumb kid who’d learned from his grandpa.
anyway…the point is…mugabe can talk shit about PIQ because he has it. he has the venereal disease called PIQ. but it’s not AIDS.
sad.
I never ment to say elons IQ was 150 only that this is one data point based on social economic status. So yes I might need 3 years of math before I get it right.
Lmao, Mugabe thinks being good at board games means he has a high PIQ.
i also came in second or won, idr, the middle school ping pong tournament. but that’s ’cause i had a table at home.
in college there was this half filippino half white guy whom i offended by thinking he was puerto rican. i beat him at chess. i asked, “you wanna play again?” he said “of course.” then i crushed him again. then he said “let’s play ping pong. there’s a table in the basement. you should know i’m pretty good. i played for the school.” then i crushed him at ping pong. very sad.
When I was in college I was too busy hitting on chicks to invite guys to basement to play ping pong.
Boy are you weird:
Same, Mugabe is writing way too much. He could just say he’s gay.
then he bottomed for me and screamed “i love the feeling of your balls slapping against my mangina.”
I am doing a bivariate joint probability distribution in Excel. The numbers may be off a bit.
2006
SAT 1600 – 0.478 – pop 818 – IQ 152
ACT 36 – 0.475 – pop 917 – IQ 152
Multiplied = 0.23
818 + 917 = 1735
1735 • 0.23 = 399
3,809,394 / 400 = 9,523
IQ 155 one in ten thousand
–
Similarly my scores give 1 in 8 or IQ 116 for 140 SAT IQ and 93 ACT IQ
0.56 • 0.93 = 0.55
This is the joint probability of both scores happening for a student in a population.
We could do the same for WAIS scores and SAT if we had the data.
After adjustments for the bell curve, one in x and the population total.
1,218,445 is the joint probability for my two scores and is equal to an IQ of 114 because that would be the number of students on the curve out of 3.8 million distributed.
The regression to the WISC is IQ 118
I might need more knowledge on bivariate regression to be absolutely certain. Doing the math in Excel has limitations but I am learning a great deal.
They’re putting kamala on tv more and in front of basically very friendly people and she’s still doing that weird schizo talk.
Very very strange. Cbs edited her answer to the israel question to make her seem tough on mother israel. Why would the jews do that??? That makes her look worse to the donors and deep state. Are they trying to tank her candidacy?
maybe the jews have now realised trump is the better option
trump posted almost an essay on twitter ranting about it. It’s true she’s a fucking moron and can’t answer within 1 sentence. But they edited it to make her look strong on Netanyahu.
Or maybe the donors are in on it, and are just trying to trick anti-Bibi voters into voting Harris instead of Jill Stein.
I’m actually to the point where I think kamala is more unstable than trump. Trump says a lot of weird shit at times but kamala…I think there’s a chance she does some profoundly weird stuff like ripping off her clothes in public or dancing in the middle of a speech.
The problem as I said 5 years ago is that if you made the ivy league basically an iq test it wouldn’t be prestigious anymore. It would be almost 50% Asians. Many literally from slums.
You go there and they are squatting on the toilet.
But the current jew system is corrupt and evil.
There should be a quota for Americans. None for race. And they should ban upper class from buying places for their dumbass kids like trump.
I’ll be blunt. Trumps add and his general academics…he would struggle to understand plumbing or carpentry.
The high IQ kids bring the brains, the rich kids bring the money, the athletes bring the looks, and the minorities allow them to virtue signal. Smart, rich, good looking and virtuous = prestigious.
wow. That’d the first high social iq thing you’ve said in 7 years.
dingleberryhumperdinck!
at least in the old wechler there was VIQ and PIQ only and thus PIQ was effectively non-VIQ…
which should be the ability to think non-verbally.
do you think chess players maintain an internal monologue while playing blitz?
idiot!
as i’ve said. i listen to podcasts while playing blitz. and i play BETTER!
this is ANATOMY!
it’s different parts of the brain!
Once they introduced Matrix reasoning to PIQ, that was the end of PIQ and they no longer use it. Because Matrix problems can be verbalized. So can chess which explains why Jews are so good at it.
peepee: but you said that the high VIQ was required for theoretical physics and chess.
mugabe: correct. that’s because by VIQ i mean something more general than language and words. i mean the ability to learn and apply concepts. but what are “concepts”? mugabe’s theory is if so many chess geniuses were forced to express/communicate in words their genius they would be able to eventually.
humans suck at chess. at least as individuals.
iirc, AI + robotics has been applied to billiards. and it sucked.
the touch. the human touch. rather than the cognitive. i expect. the animal sense.
when the universes collide peepee and steve sailer will be caught on the wrong side.
and they will 69 each other’s manginas.
sad.
When I was in college I was too busy hitting on chicks to invite guys to basement to play ping pong.
^^^ILLITERACY IS SAD!^^
WHO DID THE INVITING?
NOT MUGABE!
THE POINT IS MELO NEEDS TO TRANSITION.