Our Message: You Can Transform Your Life and Solve Your Problems by Escaping America for a Better Life & Love Overseas! Discover Friendlier People, Social Connection, Saner Cultures, Lower Cost Living, Healthier Food, Greater Freedoms and More!
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Discuss racial, ethnic and multicultural issues. Warning: The topics here are likely to be taboo, so if you are easily offended, you are better off not participating here.
So apparently Nassim Nicholas Taleb (famous scholar, statistician, and former trader and risk analyst, whose book 'The Black Swan' has been described by The Sunday Times as one of the twelve most influential books since World War II) got into it with internet pseudointellectual Stefan Molyneux.
It was over before it started. Stefan Molyneux cannot do basic math and was humiliated. He lost over 5000 fans within hours. Taleb: "Industrious BS producing psychologists have been using correlation/regression for 100 years like parrots without trying to figure out what it means intuitively. They can't even define it". Of course this isn't the first time Molyneux has been embarrassed. R/K selection theory as an application for human behavior and even *racial* differences in behavior is wrong because Rushton didn’t properly understand ecological theory, nor did he understand evolution, nor did he understand anything involving r/K selection theory which means one can safely disregard what Rushton—or anyone like Molyneaux who doesn’t know about the theory—says about it.
You can clearly train for IQ tests. I am fairly certain that even a person with slight mental disabilites could reach a high “IQ” with enough time and a high enough training frequency. The problem there would certainly be with training motivation. It would be funny if some billionaire secretly funding training camps (like the Chinese do) in some Africa country and have them show up with the highest IQs on earth.
Taleb’s objection to IQ seems to be that it doesn’t predict real world outcomes reliably once the IQ gets beyond a certain level. So for example, you can predict that someone with an IQ of 70 won’t become a Nobel Prize winning scientist, but you can’t necessarily predict that someone with an IQ of 190 will or is that much more likely to than someone with an IQ of 170. This is true of course, but it doesn’t follow that IQ is a swindle.
For example, suppose you use height to predict who could be a professional basketball player. If the people were very short you could could confidently say that they couldn’t. However, if they were very tall you could only say that they might. This does not mean that the idea of height is a pseudoscientific swindle though. For one thing saying someone is X inches tall is a valid measure in and of itself even if it is not 100% predictive in given situations. For another thing, it might make sense to use such a measure to, for example, exclude people under a certain height from expensive training to become professional basketball players and be right most of the time. It is the same with IQ.
Taleb’s objection is Molyneux using IQ as SOME measure of mental capacity for normal people. IQ tests are nothing more than doing monkey puzzles and only work for measuring people who have been exposed to the puzzles it tests for... turns out it’s a western culture test and slowly those cultural puzzles have been taught to more of the world to bring up the IQ scores. IQ tests focus on a tiny subset of what they wish to call “intelligence”. Any aptitude outside that area is considered to be null and void. People can debate distributions and correlations all day, but math is never going to reveal the deep inconsistencies between simplistic measures like IQ and real-world phenomena.
One can even “test” this idea. Let me run you through a hypothetical example:
Someone who’s “not into math,” say someone who at first thought they would do a Business major in college, takes the test. Let’s say they get something around 150, just as an example, so that they are on the “upper end of the spectrum.” (pun intended). They suddenly start liking mathematics, so they drop their plans of a (kinda useless, they think) Business Major. They study math a bit, not even “advanced math,” just the kind of math you would need for the SAT’s, say for a couple of months or a year, then they take the test again. Maybe they even took some calculus, some logic, etc… Or, even better, they just decided to start their Math and Physics major after dropping Business. Then they take the test a couple of months or a year after that. Magic happened! They scored 180! Did they get smarter? New genes? Molyneux is an idiot.
Taleb’s objection is Molyneux using IQ as SOME measure of mental capacity for normal people. IQ tests are nothing more than doing monkey puzzles and only work for measuring people who have been exposed to the puzzles it tests for... turns out it’s a western culture test and slowly those cultural puzzles have been taught to more of the world to bring up the IQ scores. IQ tests focus on a tiny subset of what they wish to call “intelligence”. Any aptitude outside that area is considered to be null and void. People can debate distributions and correlations all day, but math is never going to reveal the deep inconsistencies between simplistic measures like IQ and real-world phenomena.
One can even “test” this idea. Let me run you through a hypothetical example:
Someone who’s “not into math,” say someone who at first thought they would do a Business major in college, takes the test. Let’s say they get something around 150, just as an example, so that they are on the “upper end of the spectrum.” (pun intended). They suddenly start liking mathematics, so they drop their plans of a (kinda useless, they think) Business Major. They study math a bit, not even “advanced math,” just the kind of math you would need for the SAT’s, say for a couple of months or a year, then they take the test again. Maybe they even took some calculus, some logic, etc… Or, even better, they just decided to start their Math and Physics major after dropping Business. Then they take the test a couple of months or a year after that. Magic happened! They scored 180! Did they get smarter? New genes? Molyneux is an idiot.
All this is perfectly true, but it doesn't make IQ tests invalid. Say you tested the physical strength of people by testing the grip strength of their right hand. This would likely correlate strongly with their general strength in a variety of tasks (lifting boxes, pushing cars etc.). Of course some people like me with small hands would underscore, some people who go around squeezing rubber balls all the time would overscore, people might be paraplegics and still score well etc. but over a large sample it would be a far better than random predictor of their strength in a given situation (bench press or whatever). This is all that should be expected of IQ tests, and they adequately perform this function. Nothing is perfect.
As was said before: Taleb’s objection is Molyneux using IQ as SOME measure of mental capacity for normal people
I think IQ is a very valid measure of cognitive capacity and interpersonal compatibility. However, IQ has to be taken in combination with:
Industriousness
Motivation
Ambition
Creativity
If one has high IQ with low levels of the above, you have an under achiever on your hands. But if one is of average or below average IQ with high levels of the above, you could have a very accomplished individual on your hands.
Richard Phillips Feynman was a Nobel prize winning physicist who had an IQ of only 125. We have had Presidents of the USA with IQs in that range also but they had the above 4 elements propelling them upward.
As was said before: Taleb’s objection is Molyneux using IQ as SOME measure of mental capacity for normal people
IQ is good enough as a measure for normal people. It is not perfect, but nothing is.
Blah, if you can clearly train for IQ tests, what exactly is it a good measure for? Maybe as Taleb says: It measures best the ability to be a good slave confined to linear tasks
There's a reason why Ivy League schools don't let in hordes of Asians with perfect SATs. If you want to hire a good programmer, do you give them an IQ test or a programming task? If you want to hire a good lawyer, do you a give them as IQ test or some other shit?
As was said before: Taleb’s objection is Molyneux using IQ as SOME measure of mental capacity for normal people
I think IQ is a very valid measure of cognitive capacity and interpersonal compatibility. However, IQ has to be taken in combination with:
Industriousness
Motivation
Ambition
Creativity
If one has high IQ with low levels of the above, you have an under achiever on your hands. But if one is of average or below average IQ with high levels of the above, you could have a very accomplished individual on your hands.
Richard Phillips Feynman was a Nobel prize winning physicist who had an IQ of only 125. We have had Presidents of the USA with IQs in that range also but they had the above 4 elements propelling them upward.
Lol, IQ doesn't measure anytime besides a tiny subset knowledge that anyone can train for. It is an antiquated idea/tool that cannot possibly account for the complexity of real-world success and should only be used for retards.
As was said before: Taleb’s objection is Molyneux using IQ as SOME measure of mental capacity for normal people
I think IQ is a very valid measure of cognitive capacity and interpersonal compatibility. However, IQ has to be taken in combination with:
Industriousness
Motivation
Ambition
Creativity
If one has high IQ with low levels of the above, you have an under achiever on your hands. But if one is of average or below average IQ with high levels of the above, you could have a very accomplished individual on your hands.
Richard Phillips Feynman was a Nobel prize winning physicist who had an IQ of only 125. We have had Presidents of the USA with IQs in that range also but they had the above 4 elements propelling them upward.
Lol, IQ doesn't measure anytime besides a tiny subset knowledge that anyone can train for. It is an antiquated idea/tool that cannot possibly account for the complexity of real-world success and should only be used for retards.
I notice you have a tendancy to confuse your personal opinion with fact. That is never a good look.
IQ can be best described as the horsepower of one's brain processing. High IQ people can generally resolve problems with less effort than low IQ people.
I find that people who deny the importance of IQ are those who have discovered their own IQ to be lower than they expected or lower than average. When people dismiss things they don't fully comprehend with quips about "retards," it tends to illustrate the very thinking of low IQ individuals.
IQ tests give you a basic guidline to go by, certain people may not test well on IQ but have certain qualities or gifts. I just use it as a guide for the whole.
I was reading no where on Earth had they found any type of society with modern edifices such as schools or hopitals or fixtures of other types when the IQ drops below 90. Look what is going on in South Africa at the momment for possible further proof on this. I will entertain people are wired differently but as the whole a IQ test tells you alot about a certain groups of peoples capabilities as being capable of maintaining and building a 1st world country and for further proof on this just look at who created the modern world. It be modified BLACKman and he bee do.
As was said before: Taleb’s objection is Molyneux using IQ as SOME measure of mental capacity for normal people
I think IQ is a very valid measure of cognitive capacity and interpersonal compatibility. However, IQ has to be taken in combination with:
Industriousness
Motivation
Ambition
Creativity
If one has high IQ with low levels of the above, you have an under achiever on your hands. But if one is of average or below average IQ with high levels of the above, you could have a very accomplished individual on your hands.
Richard Phillips Feynman was a Nobel prize winning physicist who had an IQ of only 125. We have had Presidents of the USA with IQs in that range also but they had the above 4 elements propelling them upward.
Lol, IQ doesn't measure anytime besides a tiny subset knowledge that anyone can train for. It is an antiquated idea/tool that cannot possibly account for the complexity of real-world success and should only be used for retards.
I notice you have a tendancy to confuse your personal opinion with fact. That is never a good look.
IQ can be best described as the horsepower of one's brain processing. High IQ people can generally resolve problems with less effort than low IQ people.
I find that people who deny the importance of IQ are those who have discovered their own IQ to be lower than they expected or lower than average. When people dismiss things they don't fully comprehend with quips about "retards," it tends to illustrate the very thinking of low IQ individuals.
That's because you're not very well read or smart LOL. Seriously, you can't even read the few comments before repeating shit there was already addressed LOL. The fact is IQ is pseudoscientific nonsense. There is a reason why EMPLOYERS do not use it to hire people. As I said before: IQ test measure a tiny subset knowledge that anyone can train for. To test smarts requires a model that closes an environment of a common group, with a common understanding to a common goal against common experience. Do you know what that means? If I dropped Einstein in the Congo. I have little doubt that he simply wouldn’t get a lot of very unique particulars required to live in said environment — because in his entire life he simply never had to conceptualize a need to know that particular thing.
Oh, and btw, I'm a multimillionaire with a PhD in computer science/artificial intelligence, masters in biological engineering and 9' dick
IQ tests give you a basic guidline to go by, certain people may not test well on IQ but have certain qualities or gifts. I just use it as a guide for the whole.
I was reading no where on Earth had they found any type of society with modern edifices such as schools or hopitals or fixtures of other types when the IQ drops below 90. Look what is going on in South Africa at the momment for possible further proof on this. I will entertain people are wired differently but as the whole a IQ test tells you alot about a certain groups of peoples capabilities as being capable of maintaining and building a 1st world country and for further proof on this just look at who created the modern world. It be modified BLACKman and he bee do.
Sorry, research shows that no single measure, such as IQ score, could account for how well, or how poorly, people did across 12 cognitive tests looking into memory, reasoning, attention and planning abilities. The IQ test was design to test for mental retardation. If you're not mentally retarded, it's completely useless. As the article say: real world performance is influenced heavily by the risk posed to the user (Skin in the game). IQ tests do not capture this risk element or job functions (like cooking an eye), so they are NOT applicable to real-world environments.
As was said before: Taleb’s objection is Molyneux using IQ as SOME measure of mental capacity for normal people
I think IQ is a very valid measure of cognitive capacity and interpersonal compatibility. However, IQ has to be taken in combination with:
Industriousness
Motivation
Ambition
Creativity
If one has high IQ with low levels of the above, you have an under achiever on your hands. But if one is of average or below average IQ with high levels of the above, you could have a very accomplished individual on your hands.
Richard Phillips Feynman was a Nobel prize winning physicist who had an IQ of only 125. We have had Presidents of the USA with IQs in that range also but they had the above 4 elements propelling them upward.
Lol, IQ doesn't measure anytime besides a tiny subset knowledge that anyone can train for. It is an antiquated idea/tool that cannot possibly account for the complexity of real-world success and should only be used for retards.
I notice you have a tendancy to confuse your personal opinion with fact. That is never a good look.
IQ can be best described as the horsepower of one's brain processing. High IQ people can generally resolve problems with less effort than low IQ people.
I find that people who deny the importance of IQ are those who have discovered their own IQ to be lower than they expected or lower than average. When people dismiss things they don't fully comprehend with quips about "retards," it tends to illustrate the very thinking of low IQ individuals.
That's because you're not very well read or smart LOL. Seriously, you can't even read the few comments before repeating shit there was already addressed LOL. The fact is IQ is pseudoscientific nonsense. There is a reason why EMPLOYERS do not use it to hire people. As I said before: IQ test measure a tiny subset knowledge that anyone can train for. To test smarts requires a model that closes an environment of a common group, with a common understanding to a common goal against common experience. Do you know what that means? If I dropped Einstein in the Congo. I have little doubt that he simply wouldn’t get a lot of very unique particulars required to live in said environment — because in his entire life he simply never had to conceptualize a need to know that particular thing.
Oh, and btw, I'm a multimillionaire with a PhD in computer science/artificial intelligence, masters in biological engineering and 9' dick
Wrong yet again..... One of the biggest employers in the United States, the military, uses the ASVAB test to determine the IQ of potential military officers by way of the GT score. Your feelings still don't comport with the facts.
Also, many employers, including the NFL, use the Wonderlick test to determine IQ. So again, stop bringing your feelings to a fact fight.
Oh, and btw, anyone who uses diction like "To test smarts..." while claiming to be a PhD is a halfwit who is not to be taken seriously. Just because your IQ is disappointingly low, does not mean IQ is not an important measure of cognitive ability that has a direct relationship with future success.
