This is a thread where we share the books that have most influenced our socio-political thought...

>>257219612Debunked by the same scientists who discovered the other 83 genders.

>>257220969>and the predictive power of IQ is indisputable.Only for low IQ, and you don't really need a test to know somebody is stupid. For IQ above 100 all correlation essentially disappears. Read Taleb.

>>257222234I've read Taleb and the criticism of his views on IQ. While he's very convincing, the critics tore holes through his major arguments.

>>257222465Which ones? Most of the critiques I read in response to his posts didn't even address his main points. Namely, that IQs above 100 are not predictive of life outcomes. Notably he shied away from the obvious point that low IQ countries are obviously going to be shitty, but that has little to do with his argument.

>>257222781quora.com/Is-Nassim-Taleb-right-that-IQ-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindleRead the response by Bruno Campello de Souza.

>>257219429

Attached: 41IDK62ZXUL._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (315x499, 21.46K)

>>257220999if this isn't already pasta, it is now

Attached: 93.jpg (1080x758, 250.9K)

Well, duh. We are being run into the dirt by retarded Karens, and you give a shit about this?

>>257219429your book has been debunked time and time again

>>257224274By whom?

>>257223050His very first point indicates that he doesn't understand Taleb's argument about the nature of intelligence.>IQ is NOT a measure of "unintelligence", extreme or otherwise. It is a comparative measure of the ability to solve abstract linguistic and logical-mathematical problems. The results show how far each individual is from the average, both in terms of being above or below it.He's basically defining himself out of falsifiability and making the entire study of intelligence into pseudoscience by doing that. If IQ > 100 has no correlation with life outcomes, but IQ < 100 has a strong correlation, then it's very valid to say that IQ measures unintelligence. He even goes on later in his own rebuttal to bring up saturation effects, which is basically what Taleb is arguing in the first place: that once you have a minimum IQ, around 100, further increases don't improve your life. Somehow he missed that, probably because he came into the argument butthurt and telling people to only read him if they already disagree with Taleb, which indicates he wants an echo-chamber not an actual argument.If you've read The Bell Curve, you should understand the following point very easily. Most of what makes IQ valuable to measure at all is in predicting life outcomes. But when you look at the math, almost all of the correlation for IQ to life outcome comes solely from IQ < 100, which correlates negatively with life outcomes. IQ > 100 doesn't have any correlation at all. Because of how correlation is calculated, when you get that kind of binary split, correlation is massively overestimated for the entire sample. THAT was Taleb's major finding, and it has to do with math, not psychology. Most of the people who disagree with him about this simply don't understand the math that he PROVED, as in mathematical proof, which makes him correct on this topic. The evidence is very simple that Taleb is correct, too. Almost all low IQ people are poor, but the reverse is not true.

>>257225191The Bell Curve makes four major points.1) "Intelligence" in humans is a valid scientific concept.2) Modern IQ tests do a pretty good job of measuring that intelligence...pretty good.3) There is a strong correlation between intelligence as measured by IQ and "success" in life.4) The specific traits constituting "intelligence" seems to be influenced largely by genetics with environment playing a largely unknown role. Taleb makes a point about the "math" you describe and the correlations above and below an IQ of 100. But keep reading the criticism of Taleb and you'll see the nuance and acknowledgement of diminishing returns. A lot of Taleb's writing also reads like it's been written for "cool" points. Every time someone tries to "debunk" Hernstein and Murray, the whole scientific establishment bites back.

>>257227631>But keep reading the criticism of Taleb and you'll see the nuance and acknowledgement of diminishing returns.That's putting it lightly. Of what use is a measure when you have to be somewhat below average to start with for the measure to be valid? IQ is meaningless above 100, absolutely meaningless, and that's half of people. If IQ is a measure at all it's a measure of stupidity, and you really don't need a fancy hour long test to determine if somebody is stupid or not.Point 3 of your post is what Taleb mathematically proved wrong, at least in the sense that most people understand point 3. There's zero marginal benefit to your life for each IQ point measured over 100.

>>257228205No. Keep reading the criticism. The critics point out that there are factors, personality traits, that line up alongside IQ that lend themselves to an individual's success. No one says that IQ alone is all it takes.

>>257222234>Read TalebBrainlet spottedideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/

>>257219429Not a book, but based on one and almost as long as a book. isgp-studies.com/belgian-x-dossiers-of-the-dutroux-affairWhenever I share it with someone outside of 4chan I unironically add a trigger warning, which I would usually laugh about seeing other people do it. But this article is still the most shocking thing I ever consumed, including hours of gore videos.

>>257229371>isgp-studies.com/belgian-x-dossiers-of-the-dutroux-affairCan I get a synopsis?

>>257225191>If IQ > 100 has no correlation with life outcomes, but IQ < 100 has a strong correlationBut this whole assumption is wrong from the start. See >>257228914

>>257219612debunked by SJWs?

Attached: maths.jpg (482x323, 71.02K)

>>257228205>There's zero marginal benefit to your lifevery subjective statementwhat is a benefit to my life can only be measured by myself.

>>257219429Ride the Tiger.I'm going to surf this karmic iteration out boys

>>257219429The decline of the west by spengler

>>257228914Re-iterating the pseudoscience of IQ as taught in textbooks without addressing the significant mathematical flaws that Taleb uncovered is not an argument and indicates that the author doesn't understand statistics.In a sense, both sides are talking past one another. Taleb sees no reason to deal with the bulk of IQ pseudoscience because they obviously have the math wrong, and the psychologists see no reason to address Taleb's math point because he's discounting everything they have produced deriving from their math error. The author in your link quite literally does not address the inappropriateness of using correlation to discuss IQ and life outcomes when the correlation is nonlinear.

>>257229749The article analyses the criminal case of Belgian pedophile and serial killer Marc Dutroux. It's mostly based on the book The X-Dossiers, which is basically just a compilation of police reports of witnesses and victims surrounding the case. The author of the article also takes a look at relevant media articles and the like to give a complete picture. What's astonishing about this article are two things: 1. The sheer amount of evidence. I mean we're talking about multiple witnesses/victims>naming and describing the same people>giving locations of crime scenes>giving detailed descriptions of crime scenes and buildings owned by alleged perpetrators>giving detailed descriptions of the crime itself matching physical evidence>corroborating each others testimonies2. The (graphically described) depravity of the crimes. Imagine the worst things you could possibly do to the most innocent people imaginable. >rape and murder of children or babies>letting animals fuck or kill them>making one child kill, mutilate, or torture another child>hanging them from slaughter hooks in literal torture dungeons>keeping cut off kids testicles in glasses to conserve them

Attached: 1508604276726.jpg (616x316, 65.23K)

>>257230915Again. Read it. The criticism of Taleb's criticism acknowledges the shortcomings of correlation of at higher ranges of IQ and makes very plain the shortcomings. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT IQ ALONE IS THE GOLDEN TICKET. Everyone acknowledges nuance of personality traits and individuality. Taleb is arguing with a strawman.

>>257231099Fucking hot.

>>257219612>$0.02 has been deposited into your account

"The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit""Libido Dominandi" both by E Michael Jones

Attached: 1544998939337.jpg (2190x1990, 3.02M)

>>257229848Read Taleb's actual medium post:medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39He shows very clearly that correlation disappears entirely if you remove IQ < 100 data from the dataset. In later posts he mathematically proves that if you have such a non-linear sample, where scores < x correlate 100% and scores > x correlate 0%, you get an overall correlation of 0.86, which is extraordinarily high for psychology research, which is why IQ is considered one of the strongest findings in all of psychology.

>>257230915Did you even scan the article? He addresses Taleb's claims about non-linearity explicitly. He says that Taleb doesn't provide an argument for why it would even be a problem if a relationship is nonlinear and explains how even if it was nonlinear, we could still make meaningful predictions. Since you're a little hard on reading, try the condensed video version.youtube.com/watch?v=fSXYhnrwjQE&t=614s

>>257231417>The criticism of Taleb's criticism acknowledges the shortcomings of correlation of at higher ranges of IQ and makes very plain the shortcomings.No, they massively understate the "shortcomings". IQ is useless as a measure above 100. I believe, but cannot prove, that they understate things this way because they simply do not understand the math.>NO ONE IS SAYING THAT IQ ALONE IS THE GOLDEN TICKET. Everyone acknowledges nuance of personality traits and individuality.I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that there are serious mathematical flaws in intelligence research that need to be addressed. For instance, by forcing all psychologists to take advanced courses in statistics and to ban them from using correlation ever again.

>>257219429>Herrnstein

>>257224337the epic breadtubers and kosher intellectuals of course!

>>257219429

Attached: 41O0dgtQSvL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (333x499, 22.76K)

>>257231858>He addresses Taleb's claims about non-linearity explicitly.No, he doesn't, he completely misunderstood what Taleb was saying. Taleb's point is that correlation is meaningless for IQ because IQ < 100 DOES correlate with life outcomes / job performance, while IQ > 100 DOES NOT correlate with life outcomes / job performance, which leads to a massively inflated overall correlation which leads everybody who's not a statistician to think that that overinflated overall correlation means that someone with an IQ of 130 is smarter than someone with an IQ of 120, or that Mr. 130 can be expected to perform better at a job than someone with an IQ of 120 or even 100. And it's not true.The author of that response instead decided to answer the much easier question of "if IQ’s relationship with success weakens above a certain threshold such that it is better described by a curvilinear trend rather than a simple linear one." He then goes on to discuss the utterly irrelevant topic of curvilinear correlations, which is not the case here. The question SOUNDS similar, but it is very different when you get into the math, which is the entire problem here.

>>257224274see >>257220999

>>257232176>IQ is useless as a measure above 100Ok, let's say you have to place a bet on one of two groups of people and both groups have to complete some complex task in competition to each other over an extended amount of time. Let's say they are supposed to set up a small business and the group with more revenue 5 years down the line wins. All attributes of the groups are distributed randomly, except that one has an average IQ of 100 and the other 120. Which one do you pick?

>>257219429>boomer trashfuck you

>>257232879>Coward and Sackett (1990) analyzed data from 174 studies on the relationship between IQ and job performance. A non-linear trend fit the relation better than a purely linear one only between 5 and 6 percent of the time, roughly what one would expect on the basis of chance alone. Similarly, Arneson et al. (2011) analyzed four large data sets on the relationship between IQ and education or military training outcomes and found in all four cases that the relationship was best described with a linear model. Thus, IQs relationship with occupational and educational outcomes is normally adequately described with a linear function.

>>257233164Whichever group has the lowest number of people with IQ < 100. For instance, if Group A with average IQ of 100 is comprised solely of people with an IQ of 100, and Group B with average IQ of 120 is comprised of half IQ 80 and half IQ 160, I would choose Group A every time.I mean, think about it. Do you think a team of half idiots and half "geniuses" will outperform a team of of all average people? No, the average people will communicate effectively with each other at their own level and work together to accomplish the task, while the idiots will drag down their team's performance and misunderstand direction from the smarter team members, preventing them from working together effectively.Personally I agree with the argument that national IQ is predictive of national outcomes. I think Taleb is just butthurt on that score since the evidence actually does line up with the theory on that one. But for individuals he's absolutely right, IQ has zero predictiveness once you filter out everyone with IQ < 100.

>>257230915>without addressing the significant mathematical flaws that Taleb uncoveredthis is exactly what he addresses in >>257228914>ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/

>>257219429

Attached: 5D6AF6AE-2BA6-4E2E-B1F8-973A40B3289F.jpg (600x901, 86.16K)

>>257223599>>257220999Check'd n kek'd maties, cap saved

>>257234547I should have added that both groups are distributed normally for it to work. Thought that was redundant. >I agree with the argument that national IQ is predictive of national outcomes.There you go, you're halfway there. >But for individuals he's absolutely rightNo, he's not. Look at the meta-analyses cited in >>257233978

>>257233978You're missing the point. Whatever correlation you use, YOU SHOULDN'T BE USING CORRELATION TO COMPARE IQ AND WEALTH/PERFORMANCE/ANYTHING FAT TAILED.With education and military training you get the problem of circularity: while they are thin tailed domains, if you decide who to provide education/training to based on IQ results, of COURSE outcomes will be correlated with IQ. It's built into the system at that point.

>>257232879>correlation is meaningless for IQwhy?>because IQ < 100 DOES correlate with life outcomes / job performance, while IQ > 100 DOES NOT correlate with life outcomes / job performanceHmmm...

Attached: 1463347252193.jpg (1280x706, 247.19K)

>>257219429Most of 'The Bell Curve' can be derived intuitively.

>>257231669>medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39You might want to read the top response to his article at the bottom. I don't think it's clear one way or the other.

>>257219612lol

>>257235080Those analyses are flawed in exactly the way Taleb describes in his medium post: bad math and massaged data. If IQ was predictive of individual success for IQ > 100, then you would expect everybody with an IQ of 145 or higher to be fabulously wealthy, part of the 0.1%. And yet they are not. In fact, you have many many people with IQs all over the 100 - infinity range all over the place in wealth and income. The problem is that IQ simply is not predictive when IQ > 100.>I should have added that both groups are distributed normally for it to work. Thought that was redundant.In that case I would choose the group with average IQ 120, solely because with a normal distribution of IQ in both groups that group would have the fewest number of people with IQ < 100. That doesn't prove your point for reasons I've stated above. It has nothing to do with the presence of "geniuses" and everything to do with the absence of idiots.

>>257222234>Only for low IQBlacks are low IQ

All the trannies bitching about how the Bell Curve was "debunked", watch your faggot hero get destroyed.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z5CHFUvn1U

Attached: 1540935903581.png (1317x1060, 568.14K)

>>257228809Low IQ is predictive

>>257235283>why?Because when you have something that correlates 100% when it's below a point, and 0% when it's above a point, then the overall correlation is something like 0.86 which in psychology, pseudoscience that it is, is an outstandingly high correlation. The error is in using correlation to measure the relationship between IQ and outcomes in the first place.Now when I say it's meaningless, I mean that IQ is NOT predictive of outcomes where it matters most: comparing average individuals with "gifted" individuals as measured by IQ. You cannot select for future doctors, lawyers, and engineers by setting an IQ threshold of say 130. Nor can you say that those individuals with IQs above a threshold, let's say 130 again, will make more than those with IQs bounded between 100 and 129. IQ fails to predict the outcomes. The math is quite interesting once you start playing around with it.

>>257219429

Attached: 510T5gAK9kL.jpg (333x500, 34.65K)

>>257219612>1 post by this IDYou know what that means

>>257235196Then elaborate on your (or Taleb's) argument. What do you mean exactly by fat tailed? >if you decide who to provide education/training to based on IQ results, of COURSE outcomes will be correlated with IQI don't see how that follows. For instance, in the military they give new recruits an IQ test to weed out the functionally handicapped. After that, they don't get in contact with such tests again and go through normal military training. At some point, we test their performance on various tasks and see how it correlates to the IQ tests we gave them in the beginning. Explain to me where in this process we inflated the correlation observed at the end by making the IQ test part of the admission process. According to your theory, if anything, the correlation should be deflated, since we weed out the retarded people with the strongest IQ/performance correlations.Your entire argument seems to contradict itself.

>>257219429

Attached: homosex and communist.png (432x768, 387.31K)

>>257235740I agree. Unlike Taleb I don't see this as a way to dunk on racists. I myself am quite racist. I'm just being autistic about the math error that psychologists make. I'd prefer that my fellow internet racists didn't make the mistake of thinking that just because niggers are stupid and IQ proves it, that that means their internet IQ test result of 134 makes them a genius and better than "brainlets" who only scored 105.

>>257236155>. You cannot select for future doctors, lawyers, and engineers by setting an IQ threshold of say 130.Well based on my quick reading of his article, it seems like the main takeaway regarding job and IQ is:>the top 25% of janitors have higher IQ than the bottom 25% of college professors, even counting the circularityThis is thin gruel to me. Yes, the "smartest" janitors would make the "dumbest" doctors. The doesn't mean that IQ has no use above 100 in selecting for talent in difficult fields. Far from it.

>>257219612>That’s been debunked.Debunked? No it hasn't been debunked at all.What has happened is a bunch of butthurt niggers and their Jew handlers stood up and said " Well, this has been debunked"The book stands.

An user shared this book with me when I suggested the premise in a thread. I highly suggest anyone that really wants to understand the psychology of a leftist, reads this book. Completely changed my perspective.

Attached: 61tmTUdmWmL.jpg (826x1360, 71.16K)

>>257236604Can you tl;dr what Taleb is saying about "fat tails" and "thin tails"? I find the guy has a way of slapping impressive sounding labels on things that are pretty apparent to a nitwit like me with just a little contemplation.

>>257219429The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind.

>>257220999This is a perfect summary of arguing with leftists

>>257219429Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, by Marshall McLuhan

>>257235666>If IQ was predictive of individual success for IQ > 100, then you would expect everybody with an IQ of 145 or higher to be fabulously wealthy, part of the 0.1%Lmao sure, maybe in a world where there are literally no other variables. What is this clusterfuck argument? Obviously there are thousands of variables contributing to behaviour in complex ways. Obviously we can't reduce the chance at success of any individual down to one of those variables. None of this implies in any way that IQ isn't a useful measure of potential. Maybe people with an IQ higher than X are not as interested in the pursuit of wealth and fame and instead go into science (protip: they are, which is why the higher you go up in academia, the higher the average IQ).

>>257219429That's fucking hilarious, the bell curve influenced you? One of the most widely debunked and controversial books in sociology?! What next atlas shrugged?

>>257236784I think the lack of correlation between IQ above 100 and greater success in life is where environment comes into play. Dumb people are going to be dumb, regardless of their circumstances. Smart people can be hamstrung by all sorts of environmental circumstances which can create abnormal psychology. There are a lot of very intelligent underachievers out there. I don't think this is something math can quantify.

>>257219612No. It hasn't been debunked. IQ has proven to only have a very weak correlation with income, however. IMO, you can explain this with class effects. Murray was and is afraid that without a high IQ, you will not be able to contribute to modern civilization. Only problem is we still need people to clean toilets, cook food, change diapers, etc. etc. The gleaming robot labor future Murray and other Boomers imagined never happened nor will it ever happen.

>>257237134I swear all IDs this color are fucking plebbit normie tier retarded

>>257219429This book was refuted by Taleb.

Attached: 1532559917617.jpg (1356x1198, 297.29K)

>>257219429power vs forcethe talmudvarious scientology works

Attached: ts.jpg (469x1630, 188.86K)

>>257219612

Attached: 1566580866017.png (331x132, 40K)

>>257237504Normies are smarter than "people" on Holla Forums

>>257236155Seems like it's pretty useful if you're, say, using 100 as a threshold. Just because it doesn't help discriminate when your candidates are 120 vs. 130, doesn't mean that it can't help when they're 85 vs 95, you know? To say that since it "fails" above a certain value and therefore is no good at anything seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This goes along with what this article ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/ :>However, even without knowing any of this it seems clear that Taleb’s standard is problematic. Consider a case in which your probability of correctly solving a problem is 1% without a given measure and 40% with said measure. This measure thus increases your probability of success by a factor of 40 and would be extremely useful. Yet, it has a fail rate of 60% and so, according to Taleb, can’t be used in science. This seems clearly irrational and so rejecting Taleb’s standard seems justified.

>>257236297>What do you mean exactly by fat tailed?Fat tailed distributions are those that aren't a thin tailed gaussian distribution. IQ, for example, is forced to fit a thin tailed gaussian with std dev of 15 and average of 100, so that people who score 160 are incredibly rare, and those who score higher than that are even more rare. If you have a sufficiently large group of people, adding one person is extremely unlikely or impossible to significantly change the average for that group. For example, if you have a group of 100 people, adding in a "genius" with IQ 160 is not going to significantly change the average IQ of the group. Same with height, weight, and other characteristics that are thin-tailed.Fat tailed distributions, on the other hand, are the opposite, where adding one person can very significantly change the average for the group. Wealth and income are fat tailed, as is some types of job performance or ability. Pareto distributions are like this. Taking the example of income, if you have 100 people in a room and the average income is 30k/yr, and then Warren Buffet walks in having made $100B last year, the average income is now roughly $1B/yr. It's drastically changed.As for the rest of your post I'd have to take a look at the raw data for how the military does their testing and evaluation. Taleb discusses it briefly in his article and I quote "“IQ” is most predictive of performance in military training, with correlation~.5, (which is circular since hiring isn’t random and training is another test).". A correlation of 0.5 anywhere outside of pseudoscience is extremely weak and it seems to me is entirely explained by test taking aptitude among the testees. That is, considering training to be another type of test than IQ, the correlation in performance is explained by some testees' aptitude for test taking in general. Which gets to one Taleb's most abrasive points: there's no point in testing how good someone is at taking tests.

>>257237180>There are a lot of very intelligent underachievers out there.I went to a fairly prestigious technical college. I had some physics and math major friends. Now, these guys were in the top 10% of even those disciplines. Out of roughly a dozen people, none of them went on to make a lot of money. The most prestigious one is a professor in the UK now. These people were so utterly fascinated with these subjects that money was simply not terribly motivating to them. In fact, the smartest one of all, a man with easily a 180 IQ I'll wager .. a guy who could just look at a ridiculously complicated theorem and prove it as naturally as he was taking a dump .. he, to my knowledge, still lives in his mom's house and has no ambitions beyond being a graduate student for life. The guys I know who went on to be the most "successful" .. one guy became a lawyer (and is actually an outrageously dumb person .. stupifying retarded) .. and the other went on to start a security company. He was just a regular ho-hum guy who had connections in the industry and was in the right place at the right time. He's worth upwards of $10m now I think. But if you met him, you'd think .. eh, who'd you inherit your money from? Really strange how things pan out.

How do I learn statistics so I can understand taleb's argument?

>>257219429

Attached: 25621503.jpg (309x475, 21.94K)

>>257237685Source, the entirety of academia who uses statistics. But you're right, the retards on the internet cleared it so it must be good.

>>257237396>IQ has proven to only have a very weak correlation with income.Indeed. Murray has gone onto say that while correlation with earned income is weak after a certain IQ score, say 100-115, that there is certainly a correlation between IQ score and success in life. "Success" can be defined a myriad of ways. Someone with a high IQ score might enjoy teaching, for example. They may not earn like a surgeon but they'll be content.

>>257235402That top response ironically agrees with Taleb.

>>257237134>That's fucking hilarious, the bell curve influenced you? One of the most widely debunked and controversial books in sociology?! What next atlas shrugged?Now that's one hot reddit take

>>257238310>That top response ironically agrees with Taleb.All 20ish o

>>257220486>>257220999>>257222134>>257229979>>257231571>>257235498>>257236193>>257236820>>257237396>>257237685medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve_Debatehttps://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/262014https://bolesblogs.com/1998/03/23/a-review-of-the-bell-curve-bad-science-makes-for-bad-conclusions/https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691028989/inequality-by-designhttps://prospect.org/civil-rights/cracking-open-iq-box/https://chomsky.info/199505__/#TXT2.23https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/26/opinion/in-america-throwing-a-curve.htmlhttps://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/skewed-logic-bell-shaped-curve/https://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/debunk/dBell.htmhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/2967209Just to name a few

>>257238468*All 20ish of his points?

>>257238523Looks like this argument has broken down to>I've got more links than you do, seethetiresome.jpeg

>>257219612On the contrary, it's accepted even by the most pozzer lefty sociologists and psychologists. Instead, they spend their time trying to make claims of how the differences in IQ are explained by other socioeconomic factors but when they conduct studies and control for these other factors, they get the same results. Don't talk out of your ass. You're only going to embarrass yourself with your nigger IQ. Also if we include environmental factors, there are things that can inhibit development and lower IQ of a child into adulthood. Lack of a father about 5 IQ points. Not being breastfeed into at least 18 months of age another 5 points. Child abuse up to 10 points. Basically niggers do these things more than anyone else so it's no wonder they have literal retard level intelligence. Shitty inherent genetics coupled with shitty culture leads to freezer temperature IQ.

Attached: 1567100870380.jpg (618x740, 41.69K)

>>257219429I have begun read Jose Antonio Primo de Riveras writings.

Attached: Eren.Jaeger.full.2393292.png (1600x2000, 1.08M)

>>257237720>"people"dehumanizing people leads to serious problems. let's try to keep it civil and have an honest discussion, okay?

>>257231858>>257228914Sean Last didn't address shit. In fact, he misunderstands Taleb and never gets to central thesis. Pathetic all around.

>>257238238>"Success" can be defined a myriad of ways.Now we're just grasping at straws. Either IQ has some sort of objective, real world, quantifiable use, or it doesn't. I'll be honest. I've been a Mensa member for years and been in "smart" classes and am an old fag who's worked all sorts of jobs with all sorts of people. Does IQ matter? I think yes, but mostly in terms of speed (check the literature on reaction times and its relation to IQ). Bottom line: Dumb people get to the same place, only slower. Unless smart people really push themselves, they don't stay very far ahead of the idiots, making IQ nearly meaningless.

>>257238523They don't debunk IQ. It's accepted science even by the most hardcore leftist sociologists and psychologists. They try to debunk it on pseudoscientific grounds like muh socioeconomic disparities and institutionalism. See>>257238751

Attached: 874ED912-84CE-466C-AE8A-E9F829C458BB.png (600x616, 331.39K)

>>257219612>That’s been debunked.The book included nearly 400 pages of source data.faggot

>>257224274not even once

>>257238524Just about, yes.

>>257238669You IQtards are so pathetic. You act as if there has never been any academic engagement with the erroneous claims of the Bell Curve. It's been ripped to shreds. Get over it.Maybe give Murray's new book a shot; there hasn't been as much critical engagement with it yet.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Diversity:_The_Biology_of_Gender,_Race,_and_Class

>>257236949See >>257237972It's a simple concept but one that many don't understand because they either never took any courses in statistics, or cheated their way through them. My roommate in college took a statistics course for non-STEM majors and cheating was even more rampant than normal undergrad courses.>>257237093>None of this implies in any way that IQ isn't a useful measure of potential.That's basically moving the goalposts. IQ either IS or IS NOT predictive of life outcomes. Not "potential". All humans have "potential". Hell, any nigger can win the lottery.>>257237958>To say that since it "fails" above a certain value and therefore is no good at anything seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.Taleb addresses this, although his language is typically combative and may have been overlooked. Nobody needs a test for stupidity. It's obvious to any non-stupid person. Sure, the test by that standard might work, but it's not useful. Additionally, IQ test have the problem of variance in scores from the SAME SUBJECT. That is, a person can score 105 one day and 120 the next and that's considered perfectly normal and okay in psychology. And it's not okay. If you want to use IQ to discriminate against the stupid by barring them from higher education, it won't even work for that. A person will simply keep getting tested until they randomly score above the threshold to be enrolled in higher education, much like people today will take the SATs multiple times until they get a score they like.As for the article's argument that you quoted, it's shady rhetorical nonsense using a hypothetical to attack Taleb's offhand statement about the ridiculously low standards in psychological research. IQ doesn't have anything close to a "40 fold improvement" in predictive capability. But the author slyly insinuates that it does. If the argument was rephrased to be about video games even Holla Forums wouldn't fall for it.

>>257238894>They don't debunk IQThe first link does: medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>>257238811>Dumb people get to the same place, only slower. Unless smart people really push themselves, they don't stay very far ahead of the idiots, making IQ nearly meaningless.That depends on the need being met, for sure. It would be very difficult for someone with a 110 IQ to contribute meaningfully to mathematics or physics, for instance. Perhaps he or she could if given enough time, but I'll wager it would take them 40 years to get to where a prodigy would get in 5 years. The problem, as I see it, is that success is being measured by income. How do you quantify the contribution that a prodigy makes in something obscure like gauge theory? The market has a difficult time pricing such things ..

>>257239136>You IQtards are so pathetic.See what I mean?

>>257238811Based on what I'm reading in your post, you seem to fall into the classic trap that so many set for themselves with regard to Hernnstein and murray's work. They both acknowledged that humans are complex. And that intelligence is to complicated to be reliably distilled down to a single quotient. Hence, they'd say that IQ is a pretty good measure of the umbrella term "intelligence" which is used to describe a set of qualifiable mental traits. And that those traits act in unison with personality traits to affect outcome. "Smart" and "not so smart" are indeed qualifiable and quantifiable. But there's a complexity to them because we humans are complex. Not every question can be answered.

>>257238811Partially true. After some point there are diminishing returns, but a literal retard can't do even basic things no matter their efforts. Also at the very high end, some things can only be achieved by super high IQ people. Physics tends to have the highest IQ averages well as philosophy. The top leaders and innovators in other fields tend to be top genius level IQ as well. Even brilliant people with great effort can't match the achievements of geniuses with the same level of effort. Likewise, a high IQ person who never works towards anything can find themselves never achieving much and stuck working at Wal-Mart.>>257239227That's possibly the most fake of all the links you posted. You are truly retarded.

Attached: 1526245728708.jpg (1208x900, 100.28K)

>>257237958>To say that since it "fails" above a certain value and therefore is no good at anything seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why do you need to use IQ to measure stupidity when telling someone to look for a coconut in the garden when there clearly isn't one there will suffice? Taleb has made this point explicit, and you would know if you watched his videos about IQ and read his piece.

Attached: 1_bzrwR40rGrOgZG4D7xmrTQ.png (1214x1434, 179.08K)

>>257238030Take a few courses and then study options trading. Don't take too many courses or you'll start getting fed wrong information by "academics" who don't understand probability in the real world. You'll know you know enough to understand Taleb when you make a million dollars trading options.

>>257239237>How do you quantify the contribution that a prodigy makes in something obscure like gauge theory? The market has a difficult time pricing such things ..Yes, totally agree which is why the IQ argument continues. How do you quantify a social contribution? Even someone who fails spectacularly can sometimes be valuable because now people know what's wrong.The idea that IQ doesn't exist, however, is completely ridiculous. If there's no such thing as G, then why can't all apes (or a rat for that matter) learn sign language? One did, after years of teaching. There are certain forces on the left that for whatever reasons, want to deny the existence of IQ. I guess, they would argue, you can teach a rat quantum physics. It just need an enriched environment.

>>257219612Nope.

>>257220999It's a jew, they deal in beneficial fiction, not inconvenient fact.

Rerum novarumQuadragesimo annoPascendi Dominici GregisThe City of GodRevolt Against the modern world

>>257239227I've been arguing about this the entire thread, NO IT DOES NOT. That link exposes a serious mathematical flaw in intelligence research related to IQ. It does not debunk the Bell Curve, because The Bell Curve's main point was that stupid people have worse outcomes in life.

>>257237972Thanks for the elaboration. However, I still don't understand how the type of distribution would impede our ability to make predictions. And even when we assume that we can't make meaningful predictions when it comes to stuff like wealth, how would this in any way influence the predictions we make for other variables that don't have this problem? >A correlation of 0.5 anywhere outside of pseudoscience is extremely weakWhat the fuck are you talking about? A .5 correlation is a moderate correlation according to pretty much any statistician in the social sciences. Are you some kind of turbo-autist that only regards pure math and physics as science?Aside from that I already addressed why Taleb's "circular" argument doesn't make sense, as it literally contradicts his own claim about low IQ people having the strongest performance correlations.>there's no point in testing how good someone is at taking tests.That's not what is being tested by IQ tests. They test problem solving skills with the aim of establishing how good someone is at solving novel, unrelated problems. They also seem to do that pretty well, considering that the performance tests are hardly comparable to the initial IQ test at all.Thanks for the serious discussion, but you haven't convinced me so far. To me it sounds like you are some smart autistic kid who fell for Taleb's woo due to your love for maths. Everything I've read on the subject of intelligence testing goes against the claims made by Taleb and neither him nor you managed to explain the fatal error of those hundreds of intelligence researchers in a manner that a non-mathematician could understand.

>>257223176Reading it now based on you recommending it in that neitzche thread.It's ok so far only 25 pages in but he leaps around a bit.

>>257224274Nope.

>>257239162Imagine thinking that something being predictive of an outcome means that it always proportionately leads to that outcome.Imagine being such a nigger as to think that.Hey, guys, height has fuck all to do with basketball ability because there are non-tall basketball players and also lots of tall people who are shit at basketball.It's ironic of course that low IQ people can't understand the relevance of IQ.------What another user said about dumb people getting to the same place but slower, that's pretty true. Plenty of smart as fuck people who achieve next to nothing out of lack of energy/motivation/unwillingness to engage in niggerlife.Regards think this mean IQ "doesn't matter". This is because they can't cope with complex multi-factor situations. Only one simple line of reasoning at a time or they blow a fuse.

>>257239803>There are certain forces on the left that for whatever reasons, want to deny the existence of IQ.It's not for whatever reasons, it's to protect niggers primarily, and as a bonus push the incorrect notion that everyone is equal and everything is the result of the environment. They are tyrants who want power because they believe that if only they had power, they could create utopia. They don't only attack IQ, they also attack the ideas of skill, talent, and competence.

>>257231669LMAO he gives away his biases in the first few lines.Any better pitpuls, that Don't reply on something that hasn't refuted meta analysis as is just one mans bad interpretation of a large data set.

>>257239524I guess the question becomes, do you test IQ as a way of weeding out candidates or resources? The US military has been doing this for decades with the ASVAB and they seem to like it. In employment, I think it's become essentially illegal to use IQ testing. If Griggs v Duke is the marker, it's 1971 when the US went to shit, which makes a lot of sense. The US is handicapped in this respect. No wonder we can't compete with China.

>>257237542Nope.

>>257239162>That's basically moving the goalposts. IQ either IS or IS NOT predictive of life outcomes. Not "potential". All humans have "potential".We're reaching levels of autism that shouldn't be possible. I explained in the same post how IQ is not the only variable that matters, so obviously what I meant by "potential" is that >>>ASSUMING NO INHIBITION BY OTHER VARIABLES

>>257227631>3) There is a strong correlation between intelligence as measured by IQ and "success" in life.And a willingness to seriously sublimate to any authority asking trivial confined questions for a stroke of vanity. Let me see the results for people who know they will be killed if they score below a certain threshold. Similar story for people who go to trivia night to seem smart, all they are doing is begging for an authority to praise them. Taleb also goes on about how a Ceasar would never want a free acting man to manage something he cares about, you want someone who is in a slave-like position to someone else, so he can be punished. We only focus on IQ points so much since there are so few real positions of status remaining in society and it satisfies people looking for scraps of distinction.

>>257241019What?

>>257239227Read the thread before you post you Canadian dog sodomizer

>>257219429>>257224274>>257237134What a surprise, the wignats on Holla Forums dont like objective and quantifiable racial science.We from atlantis nd sheit.

Attached: 1488031229247.png (375x736, 160.1K)

>>257239136It has data that been through meta.Nice try.

>>257241091They're all dead now.

>>257240221I have to go, but look at the image in >>257239678, it succinctly makes Taleb's point in a very simple way that doesn't require math to get the point.>What the fuck are you talking about? A .5 correlation is a moderate correlation according to pretty much any statistician in the social sciences.I was calling them pseudoscientists, yes.>That's not what is being tested by IQ tests.It is indeed what is being measured by IQ tests. Where in life do you spend all day encountering novel, unrelated problems? Only in academia. Everywhere else you encounter similar and related problems repeatedly until you die. Interestingly this starts to lead down the path of what Taleb talks about in Antifragile.>>257240467>Imagine thinking that something being predictive of an outcome means that it always proportionately leads to that outcome.Not every measure has to be like that, only good measures.>Regards think this mean IQ "doesn't matter".Oof. Please learn to write American with proper grammar.

>>257241212It's normie cattle.

Mein Kampf.

>>257219612wow what a powerful response, such deep and plentiful meaning within that arguement. you can tell a lot of effort and thought went into the formation of characters and etymological structure to create such a powerful vision of understanding

>>257239803>There are certain forces on the left that for whatever reasons, want to deny the existence of IQ. I guess, they would argue, you can teach a rat quantum physics. It just need an enriched environment.Sounds like you've given this some thought. What would a real IQ test look like? Or perhaps a better question is, what is a better way to quantify a persons "success" rather than income? What kind of stat would capture the value added by an autist making a discovery in the field of number theory? Seems fairly impossible.

>>257239678>>257241367False premise. No measurement would ever be valid. It's a fundamental principle that it's easier to destroy than build, entropy. Your arguments are based on a faulty logic so anything that follows is false. Go hit yourself with a hammer.

Attached: retard2.jpg (460x416, 25.7K)

>>257219429Take the bread pill.

Attached: 146d9ef0e6e90c620212374d9aebb4af30345955304e911334f05d178cf2ce89.png (640x1000, 460.67K)

>>257240221Taleb and people who believe in him just aren't familiar enough with IQ research. That's why they assume their shallow criticisms haven't been considered before. It's the reason Taleb claims it would be better to test people on relevant tasks to predict job performance than to give IQ tests, even though we already have studies which show work sample tests are far worse at predicting performance than IQ.

>>257241816How do you even get to this conclusion?

>>257241816>False premise. No measurement would ever be valid. It's a fundamental principle that it's easier to destroy than build, entropy.Explain to a brainlet please

>>257240991>IQ gives you information about the maximum performance an invidual can achieve. This means IQ is predictive, generally speaking, but is not some immutable number that exists in a vacuum.This would be falsifiable and therefore a good scientific statement, but we already know that IQ cannot function as a measure of maximum potential. It fluctuates wildly on a day to day basis when measured over time and there are numerous examples of people with low measured IQ achieving great things.>>257240603>No wonder we can't compete with China.There are plenty of reasons China appears to be out-competing us without getting into the (apparent) inability to test for IQ before hiring someone.>China literally lies about everything>Chinese don't enforce regulations that the USA does enforce>Chinese are allowed to cheat everywhere, while the USA does not encourage cheating>Chinese regularly violate international laws and the USA typically does not (especially concerning trade and respect for sovereignty)>China has been allowed to corrupt leadership in the West (mainly through the degenerate practice of democratic republicanism, which is stupid if you're not going to at least be nationalist to prevent foreign influence)>China has been allowed to literally steal western technology for decades and continues to do so without accountabilityI'm not a Trump fan, but he has the right idea on China. He's just so fucking incompetent at leading the government that he lets himself get obstructed needlessly rather than being effective.

>>257240467Correct. These idiots just can't wrap their heads around multivariant analysis

>>257219429Bump

Attached: menamoungtheruins.jpg (333x499, 35.28K)

>>257220999Checked and capped

>>257231573EM "I love Jews" Jones

>>257241367Ah shit, so you are in fact one of those turbosperg math-purist faggots that require Star Trek-level treshold of evidence to regard something a science. If only I had known earlier, I could have saved all those minutes arguing you for something else.Your standard for science is fucking retarded. It makes you discard a measure that was arrived at through repeated observation, testing, validation and that gives you accurate predictions >50% of the time, which by definition makes it a scientifically valid tool. I have no more interest arguing against such a position, it's kind a like arguing with a reverse creationist. One last thing, the picture you refer to is just as easily debunked as Taleb's claims about the military, since we can always just filter out the people at the low end and look if the rest of the data is random or not. It's been tested, validated, and replicated ad nauseam and the vast majority of relationships between IQ and some variable show correlation that goes beyond retard level IQs.

>>257220999Do you have a permit for that opinion?

>>257242652>since we can always just filter out the people at the low end and look if the rest of the data is random or not.That's exactly what Taleb did and that's exactly what he found. Feel free to do the statistical analysis yourself to confirm.I'm not being a turbosperg about this, the social sciences have a huge problem with reproducibility and with basic mathematical analysis which implies wide-scale falsification and error. For example, p-hacking by manipulating data which is not published in full, just the conclusions.

>>257219429

Attached: cyteen2.jpg (683x1000, 118.07K)

>>257242174The pic related I replied to basically says you can hit someone with a hammer and they'll fail all IQ tests but you can't do the opposite where you have someone achieve a genius level IQ test suddenly. By this logic, nothing should ever be measured or built because it's much easier to destroy than to create. It's a fundamental principle of the universe. Everything goes to shit, effort has to be placed to maintain, improve or build. The universe is doomed to entropy.This is making an absurd argument. It's turbo autism. It's the opposite of reductio ad absurdum. It's autismo ad absurdum.No, this doesn't mean any ol' IQ test will automatically be valid. But it also doesn't mean you can dismiss IQ testing because nobody is engaging in such terrible methodology like testing dead bodies or hitting people with hammers.

Attached: 1580658142157.jpg (1024x767, 79.05K)

Attached: 1024px-Talmud_set.jpg (640x448, 85.14K)

>>257242341>we already know that IQ cannot function as a measure of maximum potentialYes it can. It doesn't give us concrete, numerical answers like "

>Rase BukÊveryone/z raščist, widhout nesessarily “hatiŋg” ânybody els. Hejte, afteя oll, iz an irrašional emošion. Akkuzing somewone ov yn-gяoup preferense iz lajke akkuzing dhem ov eatiŋg, shittiŋg, fuckiŋg, sleepiŋg, breathiŋg ænd perspiriŋg.>RGTOW

Attached: RaceBook.png (602x708, 458.19K)

>>257243487Please watch this 5 minute video. You really don't understand Taleb's argument.youtu.be/szXf0VLuQLg

>>257243487>because nobody is engaging in such terrible methodology like testing dead bodies or hitting people with hammers.You do know that niggers get IQ tests too, right?

>>257239678Why would someone be bad at everything because you hit them on the head with a hammer?Because their general cognitive abilites would be impaired ie: their general inteligence which is what IQ is measuring. It's not a sound argument and it doesn't discredit the validity and importance of IQ.

>>257243453>The social sciences have a huge problem with reproducibilityThis is not true for IQ research though. The replication rate for IQ research is extremely high and even higher when we look specifically at research in group differences in IQ.

>>257244096I had to bite my tongue pretty hard today when a coworker started telling me that nazi research disproved phrenology and outright said that african skulls and brains are no different from european skulls and brains. Why the fuck are you typing like that? It's irritating to read.

>>257219429Every book by Sam Francis and Eustace Mullins.

>>257219612>1 post by this IDPottery

>>257244119How would a person know if there's a coconut in your garden if they don't look? Should they automatically assume you are a bad actor and lying to them?>"I'm going to test this person's IQ by asking them to find a coconut in my garden. But little do they know THERE IS NO COCONUT HAHA WHAT A RETARD"Also I was addressing the point made in the graphic. Not the other arguments. In any case, all of your arguments are based on faulty premises, Taleb. Go shill yourself to niggers somewhere else. See:>>257243759

Attached: OP.png (657x539, 110.46K)

>>257243453You didn't address my argument about IQ being valid by means of producing correct predictions more than 50% of the time. Ironic, considering you accused me of moving the goal posts earlier. >That's exactly what Taleb did and that's exactly what he found.No, he didn't. He tried to make it look that way by illustrating his point using very noisy scatterplots that look random, while they really still have a slight positive correlation. He also had to go out of his way to find studies with nonlinear reltionships, as that doesn't seem to be the norm either.

>>257244645Nice selfie. You still don't understand the argument.

>>257244276IQ is just a way for physiologist to pretend that they understand statisitcs. The higher someone performs on an IQ test, the more likely there score is to have high variance. The correlation for dumb people is making it seem like there is also a high correlation for +100 IQ - but once you get past a certain threshold - these test become much less reliable

>>257244811I do. But I don't have to go deep into it when the fundamentals are so flawed. You realize this is another basic principle of logic, don't you? Nothing good can follow from a faulty base of reasoning.>"NOOO not my niggerinnos I can't let you prove they are retarded noooo"

Attached: 1562250438281.png (1300x2000, 306.51K)

>>257244780>You didn't address my argument about IQ being valid by means of producing correct predictions more than 50% of the time.You'll hit 50% simply by the correlation from IQ < 100, and random chance will give you the last little bit in the area of IQ > 100. Not a good measure. And greater than 50% correct "predictions" is such a weak standard as to be meaningless. Minutely better than a coinflip? Come on.>He tried to make it look that way by illustrating his point using very noisy scatterplots that look random, while they really still have a slight positive correlation.He used raw data, which spoiler alert is an extremely noisy scatter plot because the data hasn't been fraudulently altered, and a very slight positive correlation is the same thing as saying NO correlation. A correlation of 0.01 is fucking nothing. The social "sciences" look all the worse that you would make such a terrible argument.That said I really must go and while neither of us was convinced I enjoyed chatting with a real person on Holla Forums for once, rather than a mindless shill or bot. Take care.

>>257220999>Women age like bad milk, men age like a fine milk>Tom Cruise is a young looking old man.>Most milkmen age like women, Tom Cruise ages like a postman, who delivers wine>Most women age like specialist postmen who deliver milk, also known as milkmen. Tom Cruise ages like a postman who delivers wine, a wineman>It's real. Tom Cruise aged like a fine wine. The lady aged like a milk>Fine wine ages like a 56 year old cheese. Milk ages like a Tom>Tom Cruise looks 35 but is 56. When Tom was 32, he looked older than he does now, even when he played a man of 24. Now that he's 56, he could play a man of 68 who looks not a day over 44>Some cheeses get better with age. A 56 year old fine cheese ages better than a 2 year old regular cheese>28 regular cheeses ageing for 2 years will just about equal the amount of ageing of a fine cheese ageing for 56 years>Tom Cruise is 56 and has aged like a fine wine. Bela Lugosi stopped ageing in 1956, because he died>Tom aged like a fine wine, Cruise aged like a fine cheese>Tom Cruise died, but looks like he hasn't aged a cheese over 56. Milkmen age like woman wine>If a Tom Cruise opens a cheese, he's a master milk. If a woman's lock is opened by wine, she's a shitty cheese.>If Tom Cruise ages like cheese and leaves the station on a train travelling 56 mph, and at the same time Bela Lugosi leaves a milk station travelling in the opposite direction at 44 mph, and both stations are 56 years apart, how long before both trains age like a woman>Tom Cheese was 56 years old when he first went on a cruise>When Tom Cruise received his first paycheck, the first thing he bought was a 56 year old hot cheese>When Tom was a 56 year old Cheese he aged like a cruise>The quantity of wine divided by how long the cheese takes to age like a fine Tom Cruise equals 56.>Tom Cruise's dick cheese is in fine underaged women>Tom Cheese goes cruising to look for young male milk>And the cheese goes to: Oscar Cruise

Attached: artworks-000015364470-671i8t-t500x500.jpg (500x500, 44.05K)

>>257238785Elaborate on what is Taleb's central thesis and how did Last miss it?

>>257244955It doesn't matter because most people don't fall in the highest category. IQ testing is not perfect and it doesn't have to be. It is still solid enough to predict many things, however therefore it has some utility. And no, a coconut hunting test is inadequate. There is still a place for more complex intelligence testing. With social sciences, nothing will be perfect but it doesn't have to be. IQ isn't everything, but it is a variable that has plenty of value and this has been proven again and again even by the most ardent haters of IQ testing.

>>257245394Likewise, still think it was a bit spergy but an informative exchange nonetheless. Cheers!

>>257243487>The pic related I replied to basically says you can hit someone with a hammer and they'll fail all IQ tests but you can't do the opposite where you have someone achieve a genius level IQ test suddenly. By this logic, nothing should ever be measured or built because it's much easier to destroy than to create.I'm trying to understand this. Steelman the argument Taleb is making, please. Is this "hammer to the head" argument basically saying that extremely dumb outliers create the impression of an IQ/success correlation? Can you explain the link between this scenario and entropy?

>>257246262>Is this "hammer to the head" argument basically saying that extremely dumb outliers create the impression of an IQ/success correlation?Somewhat. Read the picture.

>>257246262>Is this "hammer to the head" argument basically saying that extremely dumb outliers create the impression of an IQ/success correlation?Yes, the idea is that all of the correlation measured is a result of retards linearly dropping in performance as their IQ drops, with anyone above averge intelligence having no influence on the overall correlation. This argument completely disregards research done on above average samples, which also show a correlation (albeit weaker) between IQ and performance.

>>257246262He is saying that just because an IQ test can show incompetence, it cannot automatically prove competence as well. It doesn't automatically result in a positive correlation with intelligence. This is technically true if an IQ test is flawed, but wrong in actuality of course because the valid IQ testing has already shown there's a correlation with higher IQ and greater abilities in work performance, income, and other factors like crime. Of course IQ doesn't GUARANTEE anything, but it is an excellent PREDICTOR which is what these turbo spergs don't understand. I can predict that a low IQ nigger will have a much higher chance of engaging in violent crime than a high IQ white person, but there's no guarantee that will be the case. In life there are no guarantees. I'll go with the reliable predictions and have contingencies in place in case those predictions are wrong. But on a large scale, in the law of big numbers, I'll come out ahead if I trust those predictions rather than disregard them. This is how jews make so much money in banking and insurance.

Attached: BF2B5EDE-EC2B-4F13-BF8E-49EA87C6DC36.jpg (2048x1171, 240.12K)

>>257246873>performanceIncome? Or something else?>>257247459Ok, I get that. Where does entropy fit in?

>>257219429It's been a while since I read it, but the broad strokes of it are, essentially:>a breakdown of differences between speech and communication>symbolic speech requires a foundation of commonly shared indices of references>the brain goes through a predictable series of developmental stages, people are typically presented with a predictable series of references around which they form their thoughts and views>neural structures and behavioral habits can be encouraged based off of environmental stimuli>language which is most easily understood is most readily passed on through subsequent generationsthe part that really stood out to me concerned experiments conducted with kittens. I don't have the pdfs for them around right now, but there have been a number of experiments done where kittens were raised in environments which only had vertical lines available as visual stimulation. As a response, their eyes adapted to become better at identifying vertical lines to the detriment of being able to identify horizontal lines. Also:>“Usually, people explain icons in terms of some respect or other in which two things are alike. >But the resemblance doesn’t produce the iconicity. Only after we recognize an iconic relationship can we say exactly what we saw in common, and sometimes not even then. >The interpretive step that establishes an iconic relationship is essentially prior to this, and it is something negative, something that we don’t do. >It is, so to speak, the act of not making a distinction…Consider camouflage, as in the case of natural protective coloration.>A moth on a tree whose wings resemble the graininess and color of the bark, though not perfectly, can still escape being eaten by a bird if the bird is inattentive and interprets the moth’s wings as just more tree. The whole book made me think a lot about school's role in limiting the scope of people's thoughts

Attached: The_Symbolic_Species.jpg (255x390, 19.24K)

>>257248010Performance can be anything that we define as such. It can be income, wealth, job performance, educational attainment, etc.All of those things correlate to IQ to some degree.

>>257246262Forgot to address the last part.I'm probably being a bit facetious, but it's warranted given the facetiousness of the spergs making these arguments. Since there's no magic pill to achieve a genius level IQ, but there is a way to guarantee a low IQ result such as hitting someone upside the head with a hammer or testing a dead body, then you can't have any valid IQ test. This is an absurd argument however because there will (likely) never be a genius pill. But also nobody is going around hitting people before they test their IQ so the point is entirely irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, it still doesn't disprove high IQ level testing. I brought up entropy because it's a fundamental law of the universe. It's easier to deconstruct, to destroy, to hit someone with a hammer, but this doesn't suddenly negate or disprove or invalidate anything constructive just because there's no instant build or instant 160 IQ equivalent to blowing something up or hitting someone with a hammer. He refuses to acknowledge this simple fact therefore I know this is someone making bad faith fundamental arguments based on faulty logic so any arguments that follow are also faulty.

>>257219429

Attached: 2940148761402_p0_v1_s250x250.jpg (156x250, 8.14K)

>>257244276Why would someone be bad at movement because you hit them on the kneecap with a hammer?Because their general movement abilities would be impaired ie: their general movement which is what bananarama ball maze is measuring.It's not a sound argument and it doesn't discredit the validity and importance of bananarama ball maze.

>>257248010>>257248548This is further proven by the absurd example given that you can test someone for incompetence by asking them to find a coconut in your garden when there is no coconut. The reasoning being you don't need a complex IQ test to demonstrate retardation. Ok, fair enough. That's true assuming you only care to find retardation but not differing higher levels of intelligence. Even so, it's still a stupid example. How would someone know that there is no coconut if they don't look? Should they assume the whole test is a sham and call you out? What if it turns out there is a hidden coconut but you called shenanigans and didn't look. Technically you failed the test so are you retarded now? What kind of garden are we talking about? How big? How many hiding places? Are we allowed to dig or only what's out in the open is part of the test? How would it even prove retardation? Even a dumbass can walk around and find something like a coconut. How does this test predict anything like income potential, work performance, crime, teenage pregnancy, health, etc.? Are you automatically retarded if you start looking? Do we assumed the tester is a bad actor who is lying in the first place and only retards believe there's a coconut? Even a literally retarded child could look at an empty lot and say there's no coconut and pass the test. They're still retarded. Even a genius could go look in a simple garden and not find anything. Doesn't prove retardation. If they find the coconut. Doesn't prove they are intelligent. Doesn't show they are a genius. Doesn't show they are retarded either. The whole premise is faulty. Therefore Taleb is making bad faith arguments and everything he argues is discredited.

>>257249277But you don't need your knee to perform all movements. You do need your brain for all cognitive tasks. Also the bananarama ball maze isn't real and no one is defending this imaginary maze test.

Ah yes the book on IQ studies of races that conducted no IQ studies on races.

>>257248548It seems to me that if you have other tests (like the SAT, LSAT, MCAT, etc) that are proxies for IQ tests .. and institutions use these tests to place students .. and the flunk out rate is low, wouldn't IQ then, at the very least .. serve as a predictor of scholastic aptitude? I hear people saying "IQ is debunked" .. but if it effectively places students where they should be, that sounds like a very useful test.

>>257219429pic related

Attached: mein kampf.jpg (1051x1360, 139.35K)

surprised no one mentioned this yet

Attached: great replacement.jpg (446x640, 42.74K)

>>257249944Yes, precisely. Those tests are imperfect, but how else can you test large numbers of people? We have to settle on something and IQ tests (including those tests you mentioned) are good predictors backed by science. It's better than nothing or merely flipping a coin. Many will still flunk out or fail, or simply quit, but these tests help reduce the chances that you'll admit people who will do that. The tests alone aren't enough however. That's why there are interviews, records checks, previous grades, past work performance, references, recommendation letters, etc. Certain jobs have further tests/challenges.

>>257219429>it turns outHello slowpoke

TALEB BTFO, DIE ANTI SCIENCE NIGGERS

Attached: TALEB BTFO.png (1248x768, 19.04K)

Learn to code.

Attached: download.jpg (195x258, 14.93K)

>>257254222what are the different colours? Are they meant to mark each income bracket and the x axis is just a sort of legend?

>>257255471They're quartiles (25% apiece)

>>257219612>>257220999based bugman anti-intelectualism

Attached: Alien_Cell,_as_ripped_from_a_spritesheet_made_by_Maxim.png (679x679, 21.99K)

>>257227631Taleb is an arab supremacist practicing taqqiya who is butthurt that most of his bretheren has subhuman iq levels

>>257228205> IQ is meaningless above 100, absolutely meaningless,> absolutely meaningless> high predictive factorlike saying that is absolutely meaningless to watch both sides when you cross a street because it is statistically possible that a nigger will shoot you anyway

>>257254222kek

Attached: 1552.jpg (874x519, 49.3K)

>>257235860You should’ve linked part 4. That’s the meat of the info.

>>257219429bump!

La Morte D'Arthur and The Count of Montecristo

>>257227631Peterson made this argument last year or so.IQ is the strongest predictor social science has. If you undo it you undo most of social science.Says IQ is responsible for approximately 25% of the variance in outcome.A few others make up about 15% sex and big 5 consciencousness and the rest 60% was unknown.I’m okay with his numbers except the most valid predictor. You can run correlations in social science purely on race and crime and you’ll get rates in the 90sSo he’s weaseling out on his definitions of valid or his definition of social science.This shit isn’t a secret either, political blocks are largely race based.

>>257231669If you remove niggers the problem disappears? Wtf I love taken now.

Attached: 47DB15E5-5479-41BD-AE6B-E8EFD35C9CE0.png (811x455, 140.41K)

>>257232879By what standard are you measuring performance and outcome. Only someone of more gifted intellect could possibly see fit to pass correct judgement on optimal use of gifts.That could be an artifact of indexing to medians rather than extremes. Set the index to smartest person to ever have existed or dumbest mother fucker ever and the relationship may hold

Attached: 0D5BBD5B-3893-4C42-8A16-F39330D7D19A.jpg (1023x914, 117.8K)

>>257241212>Doesn't into Hyperborean mythosIts a hermetic thing, you wouldn't get it.

Attached: outside.jpg (1024x858, 425.1K)

>>257219612first post, jewish postabandon thread

Attached: 1588705606944.jpg (310x394, 33.46K)

>>257237542I'm sorry WHO?

>>257236949Farming analogy might be apt. Say you’re growing corn one side of the farm is next to a busy road and the opposite a river. There’s gonna be less corn on both sides because the conditions aren’t optimal. Soot on one and floods on the other. A fat tail would be something like the soot doesn’t kill the corn but it makes it taste like shit so you will have a lot of worthless ears. A thin tail would be the corn is sparse on the flooded side. And it’s hard to predict which corn will be good, some will be watered out and some will be extra amazing because a fish landed next to it. But it’s hard to say if you are just looking at the corn.That’s this argument in a nutshell. It’s artifice and retarded but what can you expect from a poo. Hope that helped.

Attached: 74E8D49A-2EED-45B7-99E5-2F0EF3CDCEC4.jpg (340x481, 39.41K)