IQ matters

[Taint_mAnn]

To my knowledge, I never have been the first to bring it up, if you can find a time where I was the FIRST one to introduce that I'm a member let me know. I have it in my bio, and the butthurt that a conservative could actually be smart has been the source of numerous liberals who have tried to play the 'conservatives are dumb' talking point, and simply can't stand the fact that they can't claim the 'smarter than you' point so important to them. And in bringing up your own membership, you have now done what I have not. But then you and your meeting members said 'no real member of mensa would bring their membership up in casual conversation on a porn board', so by that standard, you're not a real member. Go figure!

... and now, it's time to *IGNORE*

Did someone read what you wrote and ask, "Binky, are you in mensa?" because if that's how everyone came to know, then I have to see that one post you made where you didn't sound like douchebag.

Link pls.

Also, I have met smart conservatives and you sir are NOT one of them. Sorry to break it to you. NOBODY believes you.

 

[Hypoxia]

I'm smart enough for MENSA but not crazy enough.

And the California Native Plant Society has better tees.

As do the Friends of the Desert Mountains.

And even the Elks (BPOE), but they're thicker.

 

[SelfTawt]

Awwwww, its good to be back and to be able to bask in the radiant intelligence exhibited on the GB.

A fucker once said its better to remain silent and be presumed a fool than to open ones mouth and proove it.
The evidence seems to point toward ‘proving it’ being far more entertaining to read.
Keep up the good work y’all

 

[Radiohead]

Awwwww, its good to be back and to be able to bask in the radiant intelligence exhibited on the GB.

A fucker once said its better to remain silent and be presumed a fool than to open ones mouth and proove it.
The evidence seems to point toward ‘proving it’ being far more entertaining to read.
Keep up the good work y’all

I try.

Mostly others try

 

[SelfTawt]

I wonder if anybody in the history of IQ testing has ever been told that they failed?.
There must surely be a Criteria or events that could occur that would lead to a test participants failure...?
If possible, that result is one i would be proud of.

 

[Saint Peter]

Fart smellas!

 

[Amoebah]

What is the correlation of hot general forum bitches and Menses membership?

 

[WoundedKnee]

What is the correlation of hot general forum bitches and Menses membership?

Null intersection.

 

[Rightguide]

I wonder if anybody in the history of IQ testing has ever been told that they failed?.
There must surely be a Criteria or events that could occur that would lead to a test participants failure...?
If possible, that result is one i would be proud of.

They just ask them afterward if they can find their way out.

 

[Pookie]

The correlation of IQ testing to life outcomes borders on .7 (70%). No other type of test in the Social Sciences comes even close. In other words it's a very reliable predictor. If it were perfect the correlation would be 1.0 (100%) so obviously other factors are involved.

As a science IQ testing is highly evolved. The naysayers in this thread are also among those that claim "Climate Change" is 'settled science' but when we look at the predictors versus actual outcome the correlation is substantially less than .1. Random guessing would give you at least a .5 correlation.

My point being that if a 'science' that can't even match 'best guess' thresholds is 'settled', why is a science that has consistently shown a .7 correlation bogus?

Where are you getting "correlation of IQ testing to life outcomes borders on .7 (70%)" from? Can you cite the source?

I was able to find this, but not what you're stating ...

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence

Like mortality, the association between IQ and career success is positive. People with higher IQs generally make better workers, and they make more money.

But these correlations aren't perfect.

Correlations are measured from -1 to 1. A correlation of 1 would mean that for every incremental increase in IQ, a fixed increase in another variable (like mortality or wealth) would be guaranteed.

Life isn't that pretty. Many of these correlations are less than .5, which means there's plenty of room for individual differences. So, yes, very smart people who are awful at their jobs exist. You're just less likely to come across them.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ucQEipPkWIiSlX_hObri3B-j0Ww=/2000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6492577/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-16%20at%201.42.43%20PM.png

 

[Captainnumnuts]

Where are you getting "correlation of IQ testing to life outcomes borders on .7 (70%)" from? Can you cite the source?

I was able to find this, but not what you're stating ...

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence

Like mortality, the association between IQ and career success is positive. People with higher IQs generally make better workers, and they make more money.

But these correlations aren't perfect.

Correlations are measured from -1 to 1. A correlation of 1 would mean that for every incremental increase in IQ, a fixed increase in another variable (like mortality or wealth) would be guaranteed.

Life isn't that pretty. Many of these correlations are less than .5, which means there's plenty of room for individual differences. So, yes, very smart people who are awful at their jobs exist. You're just less likely to come across them.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ucQEipPkWIiSlX_hObri3B-j0Ww=/2000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6492577/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-16%20at%201.42.43%20PM.png

Hi. I'm new here. Also, you're smart.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Nope, not even close.


The smartest fella on the GB rarely posts here any more. Just ask him, he'd tell ya. He'd have been all over a thread like this.


Hint: he was also the funniest guy on the GB, too.


Bob, we hardly knew ye . . . .

 

[dan_c00000]

No other type of test in the Social Sciences comes even close.

You don't need a (bogus) IQ test. Just ask how rich the kid's parents are.

I too couldn't find your .7 study. I found plenty of others that back up my point that family wealth is a greater predictor of child intelligence/success.

The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades. Moderator analyses showed that the relationship between intelligence and success is dependent on the age of the sample but there is little evidence of any historical trend in the relationship.

Ok now that that's been dealt with: coach I want to see your full ride offer, SAT/ACT scores, anything that says what you claim.

 

[Pookie]

One other thing I found ...

http://bold.expert/can-iq-tests-and-grades-predict-life-outcomes/

What are tests testing?

In a new study published in PNAS, the researchers examined data collected from students in the U.S., the Netherlands, and the U.K. This included IQ scores, achievement test scores, grades, and adult outcomes. It also included personality measures, which covered elements like conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience and were used to try to capture relevant aspects beyond IQ. “We think there are other aspects of an individual that matter in life beyond IQ,” says Humphries, “and one of those aspects is personality.”

Taking all of these factors into account and looking at how they relate to each other, some interesting patterns emerged. IQ scores were comparatively better than personality or grades at predicting scores on achievement tests. But when it came to grades, personality was a better predictor. And with life outcomes like wages, number of arrests, and life satisfaction, the study found that grades, achievement test scores, and personality were all better predictors than were IQ scores.

So, while IQ tests do capture something, they’re not the only factors that contribute to academic or life success. Non-cognitive measures, like personality, are important too.

“A key point here is that measures of grade point averages, which are not purely test-based and in many cases, not even mostly test-based, are providing important measures of future success,” says Humphries. And he points out that this is because grades are an accumulation of factors that include both personality and cognitive ability. Both of which influence future success. “Grades aren’t just your ability to pass the exam,” says Humphries, “they are your ability to show up to class, your ability to do your homework, and your ability to participate well with others.”

And ultimately, the better we understand what IQ and achievement tests are actually measuring, the more useful they’ll be in student, teacher, and school assessments.


So, I'm very curious where Ish got his info.

 

[Pookie]

Hi. I'm new here. Also, you're smart.

Welcome to Lit!

 

[RobDownSouth]

Hi. I'm new here. Also, you're smart.

Pookie's been to college.
A real, accredited college.

 

[coachdb18]

What is the correlation of hot general forum bitches and Menses membership?

They all have a period?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

The correlation of IQ testing to life outcomes borders on .7 (70%). No other type of test in the Social Sciences comes even close. In other words it's a very reliable predictor. If it were perfect the correlation would be 1.0 (100%) so obviously other factors are involved.

As a science IQ testing is highly evolved. The naysayers in this thread are also among those that claim "Climate Change" is 'settled science' but when we look at the predictors versus actual outcome the correlation is substantially less than .1. Random guessing would give you at least a .5 correlation.

My point being that if a 'science' that can't even match 'best guess' thresholds is 'settled', why is a science that has consistently shown a .7 correlation bogus?

Where are you getting "correlation of IQ testing to life outcomes borders on .7 (70%)" from? Can you cite the source?

I was able to find this, but not what you're stating ...

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence

Like mortality, the association between IQ and career success is positive. People with higher IQs generally make better workers, and they make more money.

But these correlations aren't perfect.

Correlations are measured from -1 to 1. A correlation of 1 would mean that for every incremental increase in IQ, a fixed increase in another variable (like mortality or wealth) would be guaranteed.

Life isn't that pretty. Many of these correlations are less than .5, which means there's plenty of room for individual differences. So, yes, very smart people who are awful at their jobs exist. You're just less likely to come across them.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ucQEipPkWIiSlX_hObri3B-j0Ww=/2000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6492577/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-16%20at%201.42.43%20PM.png

One other thing I found ...

http://bold.expert/can-iq-tests-and-grades-predict-life-outcomes/

What are tests testing?

In a new study published in PNAS, the researchers examined data collected from students in the U.S., the Netherlands, and the U.K. This included IQ scores, achievement test scores, grades, and adult outcomes. It also included personality measures, which covered elements like conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience and were used to try to capture relevant aspects beyond IQ. “We think there are other aspects of an individual that matter in life beyond IQ,” says Humphries, “and one of those aspects is personality.”

Taking all of these factors into account and looking at how they relate to each other, some interesting patterns emerged. IQ scores were comparatively better than personality or grades at predicting scores on achievement tests. But when it came to grades, personality was a better predictor. And with life outcomes like wages, number of arrests, and life satisfaction, the study found that grades, achievement test scores, and personality were all better predictors than were IQ scores.

So, while IQ tests do capture something, they’re not the only factors that contribute to academic or life success. Non-cognitive measures, like personality, are important too.

“A key point here is that measures of grade point averages, which are not purely test-based and in many cases, not even mostly test-based, are providing important measures of future success,” says Humphries. And he points out that this is because grades are an accumulation of factors that include both personality and cognitive ability. Both of which influence future success. “Grades aren’t just your ability to pass the exam,” says Humphries, “they are your ability to show up to class, your ability to do your homework, and your ability to participate well with others.”

And ultimately, the better we understand what IQ and achievement tests are actually measuring, the more useful they’ll be in student, teacher, and school assessments.


So, I'm very curious where Ish got his info.

Pooks just bish-slapped Ish's ish in two posts like

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/RectangularFirsthandAustraliancattledog-max-14mb.gif

 

[Pookie]

Pookie's been to college.
A real, accredited college.

And the mascot is an ass kickin' chicken.

 

[Pookie]

Pooks just bish-slapped Ish's ish in two posts like

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/RectangularFirsthandAustraliancattledog-max-14mb.gif

*curtsy*

 

[Pookie]

One other thing about IQ tests themselves and the role of "motivation" in taking them ...

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/04/what-does-iq-really-measure


New work, led by Angela Lee Duckworth, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, and reported online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences explores the effect of motivation on how well people perform on IQ tests. While subjects taking such tests are usually instructed to try as hard as they can, previous research has shown that not everyone makes the maximum effort. A number of studies have found that subjects who are promised monetary rewards for doing well on IQ and other cognitive tests score significantly higher.

To further examine the role of motivation on both IQ test scores and the ability of IQ tests to predict life success, Duckworth and her team carried out two studies, both reported in today's paper. First, they conducted a "meta-analysis" that combined the results of 46 previous studies of the effect of monetary incentives on IQ scores, representing a total of more than 2000 test-taking subjects. The financial rewards ranged from less than $1 to $10 or more. The team calculated a statistical parameter called Hedge's g to indicate how big an effect the incentives had on IQ scores; g values of less than 0.2 are considered small, 0.5 are moderate, and 0.7 or higher are large.

Duckworth's team found that the average effect was 0.64 (which is equivalent to nearly 10 points on the IQ scale of 100), and remained higher than 0.5 even when three studies with unusually high g values were thrown out. Moreover, the effect of financial rewards on IQ scores increased dramatically the higher the reward: Thus rewards higher than $10 produced g values of more than 1.6 (roughly equivalent to more than 20 IQ points), whereas rewards of less than $1 were only one-tenth as effective.

 

[Antryg_Windrose]

Tom Edison reputedly described his genius as "1% inspiration [intelligence], 99% perspiration [work]". Born rich is better than born smart, so the only way to beat being born rich is to be born REAL smart, and to bust ass, your own or someone else's. If you can't be born rich, get adopted.

 

[Amoebah]

Pooks just bish-slapped Ish's ish in two posts like

Proving again that tequila has IQ in it.

 

[Pookie]

As Peterson points out society is facing an ever increasing dilemma. Upwards of 15% of the population are incapable of doing anything useful (10% is the low end). And in this ever increasingly technological society that problem is only going to get worse. The politicians on the right pretend it isn't a problem and those on the left pretend it doesn't exist. Percentage wise it doesn't sound like much but number wise it's HUGE. And it's only going to get worse.

A little about your "Dr. Jordan Peterson", since you seem to be a fan-boy of his youtube videos ...

https://www.theguardian.com/science...he-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?

The Canadian psychology professor and culture warrior Jordan B Peterson could not have hoped for better publicity than his recent encounter with Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News. The more Newman inaccurately paraphrased his beliefs and betrayed her irritation, the better Peterson came across. The whole performance, which has since been viewed more than 6m times on YouTube and was described by excitable Fox News host Tucker Carlson as “one of the great interviews of all time”, bolstered Peterson’s preferred image as the coolly rational man of science facing down the hysteria of political correctness.

...

The confrontation has worked wonders for Peterson. His new book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos has become a runaway bestseller in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Germany and France, making him the public intellectual du jour. Peterson is not just another troll, narcissist or blowhard whose arguments are fatally compromised by bad faith, petulance, intellectual laziness and blatant bigotry. It is harder to argue with someone who believes what he says and knows what he is talking about – or at least conveys that impression. No wonder every scourge of political correctness, from the Spectator to InfoWars, is aflutter over the 55-year-old professor who appears to bring heavyweight intellectual armature to standard complaints about “social-justice warriors” and “snowflakes”. They think he could be the culture war’s Weapon X.

...

His ballooning celebrity and wealth, however, began elsewhere, with a three-part YouTube series in September 2016 called Professor Against Political Correctness. Peterson was troubled by two developments: a federal amendment to add gender identity and expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act; and his university’s plans for mandatory anti-bias training. Starting from there, he railed against Marxism, human rights organisations, HR departments and “an underground apparatus of radical left political motivations” forcing gender-neutral pronouns on him.

...

For rightwing commentator Melanie Phillips, he is “a kind of secular prophet … in an era of lobotomised conformism”. He is also adored by figures on the so-called alt-light (basically the “alt-right” without the sieg heils and the white ethnostate), including Mike Cernovich, Gavin McInnes and Paul Joseph Watson. His earnings from crowdfunding drives on Patreon and YouTube hits (his lectures and debates have been viewed almost 40m times), now dwarf his academic salary.

Not everybody is persuaded that Peterson is a thinker of substance, however. Last November, fellow University of Toronto professor Ira Wells called him “the professor of piffle” – a YouTube star rather than a credible intellectual. Tabatha Southey, a columnist for the Canadian magazine Macleans, designated him “the stupid man’s smart person”.

“Peterson’s secret sauce is to provide an academic veneer to a lot of old-school rightwing cant, including the notion that most academia is corrupt and evil, and banal self-help patter,” says Southey. “He’s very much a cult thing, in every regard. I think he’s a goof, which does not mean he’s not dangerous.”


I'm not at all surprised you've been masturbating over his videos, Ish. They seem about your speed.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

A little about your "Dr. Jordan Peterson", since you seem to be a fan-boy of his youtube videos ...

https://www.theguardian.com/science...he-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?

The Canadian psychology professor and culture warrior Jordan B Peterson could not have hoped for better publicity than his recent encounter with Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News. The more Newman inaccurately paraphrased his beliefs and betrayed her irritation, the better Peterson came across. The whole performance, which has since been viewed more than 6m times on YouTube and was described by excitable Fox News host Tucker Carlson as “one of the great interviews of all time”, bolstered Peterson’s preferred image as the coolly rational man of science facing down the hysteria of political correctness.

...

The confrontation has worked wonders for Peterson. His new book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos has become a runaway bestseller in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Germany and France, making him the public intellectual du jour. Peterson is not just another troll, narcissist or blowhard whose arguments are fatally compromised by bad faith, petulance, intellectual laziness and blatant bigotry. It is harder to argue with someone who believes what he says and knows what he is talking about – or at least conveys that impression. No wonder every scourge of political correctness, from the Spectator to InfoWars, is aflutter over the 55-year-old professor who appears to bring heavyweight intellectual armature to standard complaints about “social-justice warriors” and “snowflakes”. They think he could be the culture war’s Weapon X.

...

His ballooning celebrity and wealth, however, began elsewhere, with a three-part YouTube series in September 2016 called Professor Against Political Correctness. Peterson was troubled by two developments: a federal amendment to add gender identity and expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act; and his university’s plans for mandatory anti-bias training. Starting from there, he railed against Marxism, human rights organisations, HR departments and “an underground apparatus of radical left political motivations” forcing gender-neutral pronouns on him.

...

For rightwing commentator Melanie Phillips, he is “a kind of secular prophet … in an era of lobotomised conformism”. He is also adored by figures on the so-called alt-light (basically the “alt-right” without the sieg heils and the white ethnostate), including Mike Cernovich, Gavin McInnes and Paul Joseph Watson. His earnings from crowdfunding drives on Patreon and YouTube hits (his lectures and debates have been viewed almost 40m times), now dwarf his academic salary.

Not everybody is persuaded that Peterson is a thinker of substance, however. Last November, fellow University of Toronto professor Ira Wells called him “the professor of piffle” – a YouTube star rather than a credible intellectual. Tabatha Southey, a columnist for the Canadian magazine Macleans, designated him “the stupid man’s smart person”.

“Peterson’s secret sauce is to provide an academic veneer to a lot of old-school rightwing cant, including the notion that most academia is corrupt and evil, and banal self-help patter,” says Southey. “He’s very much a cult thing, in every regard. I think he’s a goof, which does not mean he’s not dangerous.”


I'm not at all surprised you've been masturbating over his videos, Ish. They seem about your speed.

I've seen that interview and he does come across as the level headed one for sure. She really fucks it all up and if it's all you see of him you really think his ideas are right because he's clearly an expert at projecting himself that way. Keeping his cool with an interviewer who was either a moron or looking for a fight only helped him.