🧵 IQ Prediction Debunked
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 19:58:11 UTC No. 16446250
What's the issue with Sasha Gusev? I've read a couple of his articles and he presents clear arguments on IQ heritability being mostly nonsense. Tell me one fundamental thing he gets wrong in that aspect
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:02:42 UTC No. 16446260
>>16446250
No idea who he is. But this is one of those things you don't need le science^TM to tell you. It is completely impossible for racial groups to have the same exact distribution of traits specially in anything as complex as behavior, specially while being aware of morphological differences in brain structure + the clear observed differences and patterns. Or for intelligence to not be largely genetic. Believing otherwise is just wishful thinking no different from a religion.
t. from a low IQ race
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:06:10 UTC No. 16446269
>>16446260
Sure but the context here is heritability of psychological traits, in this case intelligence. This is obv way harder to predict compared to physical traits (eye color, baldness etc)
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:23:24 UTC No. 16446293
>>16446269
yes because there are probably multiple different genes asociated aswell as a big impact from nutrition and other enviromental factors
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 22:35:19 UTC No. 16446454
>>16446260
Yet people from the same race seem to share the characteristics like skin color and facial structure. So your argument is retarded.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:54:23 UTC No. 16446716
>>16446250
does he expect me to believe, that every gene that affects brain function is expressed in every living human?
i.e. all humans, when it comes to genes that affect brain function, are genetically identical?
after thinking not very hard about this, i call bullshit
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:56:51 UTC No. 16446718
>>16446454
kek, or that every western hunter-gatherer had blue eyes
his argument is retarded but he somehow got the right answer
he's from a low IQ race, after all
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 05:14:45 UTC No. 16446811
>>16446454
>>16446718
I think you both lack reading comprehension. Nothing about what I said contradicts people of the same race sharing characteristics.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:04:47 UTC No. 16446897
>>16446811
>It is completely impossible for racial groups to have the same exact distribution of traits specially in anything as complex as behavior
Go be a retard somewhere else.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:23:26 UTC No. 16446906
>>16446897
NTA, but read that paragraph again but slower
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:44:36 UTC No. 16446910
>>16446250
IQ is a jewish trivia test this is the science & math board
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:53:31 UTC No. 16446912
>>16446716
All humans are precisely identical on all measures of intellectual ability
If you don't like it, you're a Nazi
EBOK at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:57:12 UTC No. 16446917
>>16446910
>>16446910
>>16446910
>>16446910
This
/Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:46:59 UTC No. 16447105
>>16446250
Nah. I got my Dad's IQ and there is no question about it. This specific mind has been passed down a direct male lineage for hundreds of years at a minimum, too. We have the records.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:51:25 UTC No. 16447111
So we have this rock in space who is particularly attracted to yellow stars
What it does? How does this affects us?
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:09:37 UTC No. 16447125
>>16446250
No, you tell us what arguments he makes that you feel are compelling or fuck off. It's not on us to spend hours reading the rants of some random nobody you fell in love with when you can't be bothered to put more than ten seconds into writing your post. You're essentially trying to pull of "sealioning", where you require everyone else to spend hours or days on research while you spend seconds posting low effort nonsense.
Spend half an hour summarizing the guy's arguments and then you'll have something worth posting as its own thread instead of this abomination of nothingness you are wasting our time on.
pic unrelated
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:46:55 UTC No. 16447145
>>16447125
You know if you really were capable of contributing so much to the thread, you could have just looked up the guy and his arguments, right?
https://x.com/SashaGusevPosts/statu
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:20:03 UTC No. 16448791
>>16447145
>look up this
>look up that
How about you put a modicum of effort into your own shitty thread and post what you want to discuss in the OP? You are an apocalyptical faggot.
raphael at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 19:30:20 UTC No. 16449398
>>16446250
post study
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:24:38 UTC No. 16449455
>>16449398
http://gusevlab.org/projects/hsq/
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:47:48 UTC No. 16449477
>>16449455
Good article
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:49:12 UTC No. 16449547
>It’s important to keep in mind that people probably don’t think of intelligence this way. We generally think of intelligence as the ability to reason through complex problems and efficiently understand, retain, and synthesize novel information
Holy cope, who fucking care how people "generally" think about intelligence
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:51:16 UTC No. 16449552
>>16449547
This is also EXACTLY what IQ tests evaluate
raphael at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 10:09:31 UTC No. 16450276
>>16449455
>meaning that low IQ individuals tend to do poorly on all tests whereas higher IQ individuals tend to do well on only some tests. Paradoxically, the positive manifold also increases as children develop and decreases as adults decline. These paradoxical observations are incompatible with a single g-factor process across all individuals and likely necessitate a dynamic model.
this nigger doesnt know shit your brain shrinks as you age and fluid drops so does WMI and PSI cognitive decline is a real thing
this guy also posts no examples to test items even from generic highly g loaded tests
this nigger also doesnt know that as you test more people and more sub tests with more cognitive profiles the variance increases too since not everyone has an even profile midwit
>t. 100 FSIQ mogger
raphael at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 10:11:05 UTC No. 16450277
>>16450276
and if you are wondering why there isnt as much granularity its because as you test more people it regresses to the mean
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:07:03 UTC No. 16452183
>>16450280
chatgpt... anon simply end yourself.