IQ vs HDI

Also, OP, disregard to the Flynn Effect because as stated above, we don't give a shit about IQ, we care about g. Only care when the g-factor is closing because any country gains can be an anti-Jensen Effect/hollow gains.

Also, nobody can tell what the fuck you're saying in your OP.

...

Actually it isn't. You're looking at the entire data set to see if there is a correlation, there is. However this is looking for the limits. Not looking for gains from low HDI to high HDI. Rather looking at what are the Highest IQs and their corresponding HDIs to see f there is a point at which HDI doesn't matter. And there is as countries with decent HDI outperform countries with very high HDI in IQ suggesting that the Flynn Effect varies and the meme that if we just disturbed wealth evenly across the globe the mean IQ would be the same for every population.

It's a procedure called windowing.

*distributed.

fake news
There is no know technique called 'windowing', additionally , 0 information is given about the usage of this technique, and there is also zero definition of this technique.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function

the explain why you chose to use this technique

See:

IQ has limits from 55-155
and HDI is an index (no limit, since it is an arbitrary number)

It is just retarded to say IQ → HDI
or HDI → IQ

Talking about social problems :
Which would you rather have if you had to have a kid with 35 IQ point deviation from the average?
A kid with 65 or 135 IQ?
Both have problems, ergo.
You should not seek for the limits, but a mayority of cases.
Because everyone that has an IQ below 80 is just worthless (wont improve HDI) as are the savants (won't improve HDI either)

Actually IQ is normalized at 100, it's not bounded in a range. Both measures are relative measures and can be used to see if they correlate.

Not really. A high IQ is needed to do the kind of work necessary to develop a nation to get a good HDI score. And there have been historical relative IQ increases as that development occurred due to nutrition, etc improving allowing brains to develop more healthily leading to IQ. But there is only so much nurture you can give any physical system including a brain until there are diminishing returns. And since brain structure is genetically controlled and those alleles are unlikely to be evenly distributed geographically it is stupid to suggest as leftists have that IQ can be equalized globally if wealth was evenly spread out. And my window of high IQ nations indicates they are wrong. At some point the correlation ceases. It's not cherry picking, I'm just cutting out nations below certain IQs.

shiggy diggy

Dude, why are even running the models? You can just point out to lefties that a) between group IQ is on g (SH); b) SES has no affect on g (in a humane environment of course); and c) you can demonstrate it showing the Flynn Effect is not g-loaded and neither are adoptee gains nor education gains. Hell, take it one step further by showing that even teaching of the test is not g-loaded either. Like, you're trying to hard for basic shit, my guy. Come on.

Fair points, but can't hurt to have another evidenced argument that corroborates that evidence.

Have you thought about writing a paper to be published on this?

I was actually thinking about pitching it to EO Kirkegaard since this stuff is not my major but I do know data analysis enough to know this is valid. It's just the analysis I do is outside psychology.

It's a really simple technique. All I am doing is moving this bar up and calculating the correlation for the data points above it.

Are you majoring in psychology? We need new psychometricians arguing for the hereditarian side since Rushton and Jensen are dead and Gottfredson isn't doing all too much now days. Any chance you plan on taking up our side?
Anyways Kirkegaard's openpsych journal has the submit forum. I would either post your draft there, hit him up on Twitter or get in contact with John Fuerst.

That's the thing I'm not in psych. I'm in data science. But I have been a hereditarian for years now. It's retarded not to be.

I'm thinking of hitting him up on twitter as soon as my time frees up (busy af rn, just had an epiphany doing something else and applied it to this spur of the moment) with this method. I honestly can't afford to be published with such a thing as it'd ruin my employment opportunities in my field. But I def want to help out any way I can and I don't care if I get no recognition for it. I just want to make sure leftists are defeated.

Hell if you want to tweet him this be my guest, fam. As I said I just wanted to share my epiphany here.

...

Yeah, anonymity is key and I don't blame you for not wanting your name on it. Maybe give your results to John Fuerst because he can either a) post it on his site or b) use it for his own papers with your (fake) name giving credit. How much do you know about psychometrics? Are on a good level to where you get what I was talking about here: or?

Don't get me wrong, I love Varg for his traditionalism and all his other stuff, but he has not researched IQ/g enough. For example: he says (paraphrased) "one man trained in Israel and now has an IQ of 160 something" and "if you take over and over you gain the skill just for these test" without realizing that those trained IQ gains are hollow for g, so we can tell when you've trained for or memorized the test. Also, "what if someone wasn't interested in what IQ is measuring?" Well, we have IQ test that are just logical patterns, such as the Raven's Progressive Matrices and Standard Progressive Matrices. So unless somehow you need to be educated in logical patterns… like, you can see where I'm going with this. Not being interested in one subject while interested in the other is not a problem for IQ testing…

Completely understood controlling for environment, there is still variation in the psychometrics as we should expect. And I think I get g-loading, which is how strongly a test is correlated to general intelligence rather than testing a specific subset of it. I'll try to get in contact with Fuerst, just might be a while till I'm free so if you want to give him this stuff be my guest, fam. I have no problem giving this to him for full credit if he'll use it to bludgeon Flynn et al with it. Anyone mercilessly beating them with a tool I provide is all the reward I need. Anyway I should probably get back to work.

Here, I wrote a copy and paste for my buddy while back:
HOW IQ/g WORKS~~~
(skip to end for highlights)
Okay, so the way an IQ test works is that an IQ test has multiple subtest - so it's just a test made up of a bunch of little test - usually ranging from 6-12 subtest. What these subtest are is multiple different kinds of task that measure different cognitive abilities.

Some of these subtest are, for example:
~Verbal IQ
~Backwards Dightspan.
~Cancellation.

Keep in mind, each of these subtest measure a specific cognitive ability. The Verbal subtest measures your ability in verbal (language) comprehension; Backwards Dightspan is were you're read a bunch of numbers and you repeat them backwards from the order that they are giving in. Which measures your ability to manipulate and organize information in your mind; and lastly Cancellation is were you are shown a picture for a short amount of time and are asked to recall objects from it. This measures your ability for visual processing.

Now, your IQ is going to be all of these subtest added together. This is called "full scale IQ".

Your "g" is going to be your general intelligence.
What is "g"? g is just shorthand for 'General Intelligence', or else called the "g-factor".

But what IS "g" really? Well as said, g is your general intelligence. All of these subtest correlate to each other. Some more than others, but to an extent they are all interconnected by this one underlining phenomena. We call this phenomena "general intelligence".

So they're all interconnected/correlated. But what does that mean? Well, it means how well you do on one subtest can predict how well you do one all of the others. So how well you do on the Verbal IQ subtest will predict how good you are at Backwards Dightspan and how good you are on Cancellation. But some subtest better predict how well you do on others more than other subtest. The better one subtest predicts your overall outcome, the more "g-loaded" it is. Which means the more general intelligence that subtest and or specific cognitive ability takes.

In other words, all of these specific cognitive abilities all have a general underlining factor. We call this factor "general intelligence". Some cognitive abilities take more general intelligence more than others.

So when people are talking about IQ, they're talking about the overall score you got on your IQ test (all of your subtest added together).

When people are talking about your general intelligence, they're talking about your score that's seen through all subtest of the IQ test correlated and predicted together. This is called factor analysis.

HIGHLIGHTS:
~IQ test have multiple subtest. Each subtest measures a specific cognitive ability.

~Each subtest/specific cognitive ability correlates and to some degree, depending on the subtest/ability, predicts how you do on all of them together.

~All subtest have a general underlining factor: this is called g or general intelligence or the g-factor.

~Some subtest predict your ability better than other subtest. This is called "g-loading". The more g-loaded a subtest is the more general intelligence it takes.

~When people talk of IQ, they are talking about the overall score you got on your IQ test (all of your subtest added together).

~When people talk of your general intelligence, they're talking about the score that is seen through all subtest of the IQ test correlated and predicted together. This is called factor analysis.
Kek. Flynn got btfo by Rushton back in the day, so I don't know if people are still on about Flynn. Anyways. John would be a good contact. I sadly can't also give him the data since I too am caught up with my studies.