🧵 IQ is a meme so stfu
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 04:53:19 UTC No. 16418660
>B-but IQ correlates with intelli-ACK
There isn't an absolute definition of what intelligence is, let alone the ability to measure it. Einstein failed history and french, does that make him low IQ? Define intelligence and then define how to measure it with 100% accuracy.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 04:58:57 UTC No. 16418666
The less like you, the better. Objectively.
raphael at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 05:00:32 UTC No. 16418670
>>16418660
then why does it follow the normal distribution retard when you sample the entire population
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 05:16:10 UTC No. 16418684
>>16418660
You got your ego hurt because you got a sub average result on your IQ test, didn't you?
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 05:21:59 UTC No. 16418689
>>16418660
IQ is only one measure of intelligence and it just so happens that it's the best to describe general intelligence.
Einstein never failed anything, that's a myth propogated by low IQ retards who don't know that lower score => better grade in most grading systems in Central Europe.
>>16418660
>Define intelligence and then define how to measure it with 100% accuracy.
IQ tests define intelligence.
There are other objective things we can measure, such as genes strongly correlated to high academic success in twin studies. Those genes, however, in turn correlate with high IQ.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 05:29:30 UTC No. 16418698
>>16418689
Einstein did poorly in History and French like the OP said thoughever, iirc he failed the French portion of a College entrance exam or some shit. The popular meme that's untrue is that he failed Math or some shit; he generally excelled in STEM.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 05:40:16 UTC No. 16418716
>>16418684
IQ tests are confirmation bias, all debates would end the moment they are 100% accurate.
>>16418689
You can't even define intelligence lmfao, just like when you ask trannies what is a woman and then they respond with some retard shit like "a female person" or "someone who identifies as a woman". Yes some people are nnately more intelligent but that doesn't mean IQ tests are accurate.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 05:42:18 UTC No. 16418718
>>16418698
I have never seen proof that he failed anything, but language and history classes in Europe back then had much higher standards than any subject we have today so it's not surprising that even a genius would fail them without adequate study.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 05:49:01 UTC No. 16418723
>>16418716
>You can't even define intelligence lmfao,
I just did: Intelligence is IQ.
Double digits will actually struggle to understand such as simple concept.
> just like when you ask trannies what is a woman and then they respond with some retard shit like "a female person" or "someone who identifies as a woman". Yes some people are nnately more intelligent but that doesn't mean IQ tests are accurate.
Trannies come up with vague bullshit word vomit because they know they are objectively wrong.
I can quantify both easily:
-A women has two X chromosomes, a man is XY, a person with an extra or broken chromosome is called a genetic defect or a freak
-An intelligent person had an IQ >140, a midwit has an IQ >120, OP has an IQ <100
Go ahead and word vomit like parasite brain libtard who likes to see other men fuck his wife.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 05:52:01 UTC No. 16418729
>>16418723
>what is a woman
>a female person
>what is intelligence
>intelligence is IQ
Do you not see the problem here? IQ is an attempt to measure intelligence, now define intelligence. Don't be like a troon.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:00:03 UTC No. 16418738
>>16418729
The only problem I see is your attempt at word trick nonsense, your post is "X is just a social construct" tier.
Everyone knows what intelligence is, just like we innately know a women is. Creatures with high intelligence (like white people and border collies) can learn things faster than creatures with low intelligence (like Africans, Arabs and bulldogs).
IQ is just the formal definition of intelligence.
We don't need an "absolute" definition of intelligence because IQ already measures the kind of intelligence we care about.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:09:01 UTC No. 16418747
>>16418738
So intelligence is defined as the speed of learning? Okay then, how exactly do IQ tests accurately measure that trait when it's just a bunch of questions? Do you see how intelligence is so complex it can't be defined as a single number?
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:13:55 UTC No. 16418754
>>16418723
Tell me more about how seeing anagrams helps me in laser lab.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:25:19 UTC No. 16418768
>>16418747
>how exactly do IQ tests accurately measure that trait when it's just a bunch of questions?
The questions test your learning rate, both short and long term. In a real, accredited IQ test this is explained to you. For the same reason IQ tests are less reliable when you take them multiple times in quick succession because you already learned the pattern recognition of a particular test set.
>accurately measure
IQ is not an fixed variable, it is a statistical variable. It allows you to accurately gauge your intellegence relative to the population which is the most meaningful absolute number that you can possibly extract from the concept of intelligence.
Your concerns are literally how the IQ test was developed in the first place and this line of conversation will lead to you recreating the IQ test in the end.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:26:25 UTC No. 16418769
>>16418754
It doesn't, midwit.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:32:55 UTC No. 16418778
>>16418754
This post was made by a third rate experminental PhD student who is now panicking after getting a midwit IQ test result.
It's fine Anon, you're mom still thinks you're smart.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:59:31 UTC No. 16418794
>>16418778
How did you know?
My verbal IQ detoriated, but I gained spatial.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 07:28:01 UTC No. 16418825
>>16418738
>We don't need an "absolute" definition of intelligence because IQ already measures the kind of intelligence we care about.
>continues to get buried in Trillions of debt
>continues to shrink in numbers via crashing birthrates
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 07:34:07 UTC No. 16418836
IQ 180+ here. (Don't even bother to ask for a proof).
Let me deboonk the most common midwit misconceptions about IQ.
>but intelligence is multifaceted
IQ tests numerical and symbolic pattern recognition, verbal comprehension, short term memory, spatial visualization and logical reasoning. Wanna add something? Then present a rigorous test and justify why it should be included in the definition of intelligence.
>but what about emotional intelligence, social intelligence, twerking skills, number of followers on tiktok/onlyfans
Sorry sweaty, we're measuring intelligence here, not your ability to copy NPC behaviour.
>why didn't you win a Nobel prize/Fields medal? IQ means nothing when you're a loser
Intelligence comes with no obligation to contribute anything to the industrial-technological system. Acadummic success is mainly determined by obedience and social networking. A shitload of midwits (and in social "sciences" even actual brainlets) have a PhD nowadays.
>but what is your IQ good for then?
IQ enables you to quickly learn, understand, connect and creatively play with abstract concepts and to analyze, question and improve theories. Unlike a midwit whose highest achievement is superficially regurgitating what he's told.
>but IQ is racist
No, IQ is a factual statement. It doesn't tell you morally how to treat others.
>if you're so smart why aren't you rich?
Because I wasn't born rich and our economy wants obedient workers, not smart workers. You don't get rich by being smart, you get rich by being popular and sociopathic.
>if you're so smart why don't you get laid?
Attractiveness is determined by looks and status. Women are generally anti-intellectual and think of an intelligent man as a nerd in the negative sense, unless he's a gigachad. I say this as a married man btw
>isn't this just cope?
The only ones coping here are the IQ denialists. If they didn't need to cope they'd just accept that there are people who are rightfully proud of scoring high on the IQ test
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 07:38:32 UTC No. 16418841
>>16418825
>continues to get buried in Trillions of debt
Litetally because of influx of low IQ shitskins. Litetally if you use genetic IQ as a model you could do far better economic prediction than treating people like interchangable cogs.
>continues to shrink in numbers via crashing birthrates
This is just a natural regression of over capicity nations. The TFR has always osscillated around 2 since medieval times.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 10:29:03 UTC No. 16418959
>>16418660
iq being a meme is itself a meme conjured by coping low iqs
t. low iq with basic logic skills
if it makes ya feel any better anon many high iqs will work extremely hard and be fooled into believing they made it only to end up miserable and depressed like everyone else, granted the odds are lower but my point is iq doesn't decide every aspect of your life so focusing on your deficiency/proficiency on that scale alone is dumb and useless
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 15:44:28 UTC No. 16419321
>>16418716
Which test is 100% accurate? Are thermometers 100% accurate?
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 15:49:09 UTC No. 16419334
>>16418841
>Litetally because of influx of low IQ shitskins. Litetally if you use genetic IQ as a model you could do far better economic prediction than treating people like interchangable cogs.
>China $47 Trillion in the hole
>Japan $9 Trillion in the hole
Nah mate, you don't get to weasel your way out with muh third worlders. The two countries with the highest national IQs and homogeneous majorities have Trillions in debt. Similar to western countries. Something else is clearly going on and the "kind of intelligence we care about" is associated with it.
>This is just a natural regression of over capicity nations. The TFR has always osscillated around 2 since medieval times.
No, the fertility rate osscillated between 3-5 during the medieval times. The mortality rate due to lack of national hygiene, clean water processes and diseases was 40-50% which gave the "effect" of a fertility rate of 2. Once those issues were resolved the fertility rate 3-5 expressed itself fully in 1600-1700s and rose to a peak in the mid 1800s at 6 during the industrial boom.
The idea of the fertility rate would plummet to below 2 in most countries where national hygiene, clean water and resistance to diseases are the highest along with advances in technology are outright superior to the 1800s is paradoxical. If your oscillation theory was true the fertility rate should have relaxed back to 3 after the industrial boom. It definitely shouldn't be at 1.5-1.2 births per woman you're seeing right now.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:10:46 UTC No. 16419531
>>16418660
Intelligence is general processing speed weighted through different factors. It's substantial enough to predict ones economic success on average, all outliers considered.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:28:17 UTC No. 16419559
If your IQ is below 125 you have no business critiquing IQ from a philosophical perspective. Einstein did not study his french or history, he didn't care. Grades aren't IQ you fucking RETARD.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:59:28 UTC No. 16419627
>>16418718
much like a scribbler can become a mediocre artist with enough effort and practice, a midwit can gain intelligence and wisdom far superior to his peers if he puts effort into it and has an interest(or parents that structured his life so he gets a good education).
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 19:03:33 UTC No. 16419635
Mathcels can't even accurately measure differential equations
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:05:16 UTC No. 16419714
>>16419334
>Nah mate, you don't get to weasel your way out with muh third worlders.
But it literally proves my point. Low IQ countries like Nigeria are shitholes with a population the size of the US and over 50% of them having "degrees", yet zero actual true intellectual capital capable of innovation.
>The two countries with the highest national IQs and homogeneous majorities have Trillions in debt.
Richest countries in the world are Switzerland, Norway, also with the highest IQs in the OECD (which has actual trustworthy data).
USA spends all of its money on shitskins and refugees these days, that's the debt.
>Something else is clearly going on and the "kind of intelligence we care about" is associated with it.
I don't know what your point is, IQ is directly correlated with GDP per capita according to every study ever done on OECD data.>>16419334
>No, the fertility rate osscillated between 3-5 during the medieval times. The mortality rate due to lack of national hygiene, clean water processes and diseases was 40-50% which gave the "effect" of a fertility rate of 2.
Not true, the TFR was around 1.9 in some centuries and even dipped to 1.4 in the 15th century, and in urban areas it aleays hovered around 1.0.
This was not due to "have many children who die" myths, but due to lower fertility from what amounts to poor health due to overpopulation.
>Once those issues were resolved the fertility rate 3-5 expressed itself fully in 1600-1700s
The post plague TFR was not due to "resolving" any issues you mentioned. It was due to the fact that Europe was underpopulated and wages increased dramatically while housing costs lowered which allowed for higher standards of living.
> and rose to a peak in the mid 1800s at 6 during the industrial boom.
Industrial revolution was again simply the the effect of technology allowing for a massive increase in carrying capacity of a given land area.
Modern TFR is simply a return to equilibrium.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:07:06 UTC No. 16419716
>>16419334
>If your oscillation theory was true the fertility rate should have relaxed back to 3 after the industrial boom.
It did in most of Europe, then increased again after WW2 before dipping again.
>It definitely shouldn't be at 1.5-1.2 births per woman you're seeing right now.
The problem is a combination of overpopulation with an artificial increase in living costs due to record immigration.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:07:35 UTC No. 16419717
>>16419559
how do you know what your IQ is?
everyone just studies for IQ tests
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:08:45 UTC No. 16419720
>>16419716
>The problem is a combination of overpopulation with an artificial increase in living costs due to record immigration.
nope, see Poland, Lithuania, Latvia etc
>It did in most of Europe, then increased again after WW2 before dipping again.
nope.
Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 21:20:28 UTC No. 16419822
>>16418670
almost all continous parameters you sample in the entire population follow a normal distribution. IQ tests measure IQ, but what exactly is this IQ thing? we know it's not intelligence, it might be a part of intelligence but it's unclear
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 05:16:29 UTC No. 16420567
>>16418768
>IQ is not an fixed variable, it is a statistical variable
This is exactly what's wrong with IQ tests, it's inherently inaccurate. Statistical probabilities exists due to not fully understood logic, in reality nothing is random, it's black and white because it's either truth or lie. We can measure physical potential with 100% accuracy (muscle mass, height, weight, etc.) but we cannot do the same with intelligence, and our best attempt to do it is some piss poor paper test that is easily fragile to error. Unless you can prove without a doubt that IQ tests are 100% accurate, it will still remain as a meme.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 05:20:40 UTC No. 16420574
>>16419321
You can accurately measure weight, speed, distance, , etc. but you can't accurately measure intelligence. I'm not denying that some people are intellectually gifted, I'm just saying IQ tests are just inaccurate even if it's our best measurement.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 06:53:21 UTC No. 16420627
>>16420567
>This is exactly what's wrong with IQ tests, it's inherently inaccurate.
You are confusing accuracy with statistics. Plenty of stochastic equations produce exact results such as options pricing, an exact minima in ML training etc. IQ also allows you to make exact claims about where you fit in intelligence relative to a population.
>Statistical probabilities exists due to not fully understood logic, in reality nothing is random, it's black and white because it's either truth or lie. We can measure physical potential with 100% accuracy (muscle mass, height, weight, etc.)
We can't actually do that exactly, that's why we have a cutoff for significant figures.
>but we cannot do the same with intelligence, and our best attempt to do it is some piss poor paper test that is easily fragile to error. Unless you can prove without a doubt that IQ tests are 100% accurate, it will still remain as a meme.
IQ tests are 100% accurate.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:17:03 UTC No. 16421600
>>16420627
>IQ tests are 100% accurate.
Maybe if it's conducted similarly in a sports like environment where you can take multiple IQ tests and then calculate your average IQ. In sports we don't judge an athlete's performance by 1 game alone but through multiple games because we know athletes can have good and bad days. Taking an IQ once and determining that's your full intellectual potential just doesn't seem scientifically accurate, and even then IQ tests don't cover all types of intelligence.
raphael at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 21:32:46 UTC No. 16421815
>>16420574
appeal to probability faggot if theres some error in measuring ability which there is its about 1% of the population in which iq tests dont "work" theyre about average so it does work for the majority if you knew basic statistics then youd believe in iq
btw its not a meme kek you are just coping
raphael at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 21:33:46 UTC No. 16421816
>>16419559
agreed and einstein was probably a PRI fag with autism >>16419717
>Verification not required.
assumption >>16419717
raphael at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 21:34:47 UTC No. 16421817
>>16419717
nigger how are you going to study for an iq test? its illega to own it
raphael at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 21:36:07 UTC No. 16421818
>>16419822
rarity nigger and thats what intelligence is from a population perspective
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:10:16 UTC No. 16421860
>>16418836
Do you believe that a person who does not score particularly high on an IQ test can achieve great levels of wisdom through the passionate and objective (in so far as that's possible) pursuit of knowledge, which would result in the development of an individual that is certainly not the 'smartest' or the most 'clever', but very much an individual that has superbly connected the dots of our earthly (human) existence (in both past and present) and its manufactured systems and as a result can see things much more clearly than the vast majority could ever hope to see due to their boxed in mentality due to their reliance on social systems and sensitivity to peer pressure and group identities?
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 00:51:32 UTC No. 16422055
>>16418660
There are flaws in IQ, but generally speaking, some people are just naturally more intelligent.
There isnt one single metric for physicality, but everyone understands that some people are more physically gifted.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 01:00:08 UTC No. 16422070
I make more than an MIT professor and I'm an artist. I'm considered a master artist by many, a genius even. But you can't test for that so it's meaningless.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 02:49:23 UTC No. 16422188
I have a top 1% IQ and I'm typically able to grasp concepts faster than people around me. I can't think of a single person I've met that was noticeably more intelligent than me, but I can think of countless that were clearly less intelligent. (This isn't to say I think I'm anything special, I've met several people that were on my level, and many more accomplished than me due to hard work).
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:10:35 UTC No. 16422839
>>16422170
>Wish my IQ was bigger
Apparently ignorance isn't bliss.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:13:21 UTC No. 16422846
>>16422188
>I've met several people that were on my level,
Maybe about one in a hundred?