How much do you believe in the IQ concept?

Where is Cambodia? They are smart nasty.

 

Cool, can i go see it.

 

There are strong links between high testosterone and autism + increased mental performance in specialized areas while being debilitated in others.

But IQ results generally don't serve much purpose other than nerds in lab coats to extend their penis size.

And as history has shown repeatedly, many men who score highly on IQ tests also marry extremely unattractive and naggy women, going against the fundamental laws of evolution and proving themselves to be stupid.

Burmese strike me as quite aboriginal. Surprised to see them ahead of most.

 

Nerds are in now. They rule the world.

 

Brains are way to complicated to be quantified. Also isn't there some basic logical flaw in human brains coming up with a test to measure the aptitude of human brains?

 

This is right up there with phrenology. Cranial volume isn't at all related with intelligence. Otherwise, it would be scientific fact that women are less intelligent than men, as the average cranial capacity of women is 10% less than that of men, and 10% vs the 1% or 2% that is being discussed here would essentially be proof positive that women are drooling morons who shouldn't be allowed out of the kitchen, if the relationship is linear.

Read this book, specifically the chapters dealing with Paul Broca, and his struggle against conformation bias among his peers on this, and other supposed anthropological evidence of French racial superiority. Cranial capacity as a measure of intelligence was disproved by Broca in the 1860's.

There appears to be a correlation, however, between the surface area of the cerebrum and intelligence.

Here is a human brain:


and here is a squirrel brain:



Notice how the human brain is all wavy, while the squirrel brain is smooth? That is because the undulations enable the human brain to have more relative surface area in a given volume. Oddly enough, when you measure the total surface area of men and women, they come out to be pretty much the same. Women have less volume, but a concurrently more complex series of fissures. To the best of my knowledge, there is no average difference in surface area across races.

Also keep in mind that a very significant portion of the human cerebrum is dedicated to analyzing visual information, controlling movement, proprioception, and emotion. These are not things normally associated with intelligence.

 

"Nerds" have much the same negative personality issues as anyone else. Such as uppity self aggrandizing boastfulness of their capabilities. And can have lack of well-rounded emotional conscience past hard facts and numbers, emphasizing data over well-being

Knowing a lot of things doesnt automatically make you a better person over someone that doesnt.

(Though it doesnt mean nerds have to "play nice" either)

 

So pouhe is a mongol.

 

Since when did intellectualism correlate with a score on a standardized test? That's exactly what's wrong with nerds, they use faux credentials to validate their opinions. Good for a laugh, but alienating when taken seriously. There are plenty of intelligent people who aren't nerds.

 

He also has never been with a woman, is 180+ kg and masturbates more than 3 times a day according to my last discussion with him. Reynolds & Williams, et 1956, argue the need to overanalyze a topic is inversely proportional to intelligence, but necessary to validate and compensate for social exclusion and feelings of love, joy and passion other humans feel. That is most likely what impressed you about him in terms of intelligence.

But essentially, it only hurts the host party.

A human that utilizes a larger dimension of his brain is infinitely more intelligent than one who reprocessses material from the same part, using a much smaller % overall. Not a personal knock, but a case study of perception vs truth.

 

If IQ tests are good enough for psychologists and clinicians, they must do something right.

They are not perfect, especially for non-caucasian society members or people who dont speak english as their first language.
But statistically IQ tests are valid enough and very reliable.

The counter argument is that Intelligence has many dimensions and IQ only measures a few of them. Emotional Intelligence for instance is not measured along with many others.

 

Valid enough for what exactly? To be hired by a firm? Get an MBA? Make a living?

We talkin bout raw brainpower and intelligence here. not the avility to live rationally within your means and abide by a predetermined framework.

How many white visionaries and geniuses have we seen who did terribly in school and standardized tests?

 

Valid as in the test measures what the researchers intend it to measure

And IQ is definitely not linked to school, i am of the firm belief that school is more reflective of effort than intelligence. Steve jobs comes to mind, even though he went to university he dropped out. His IQ is estimated at 160 (100 is average and 150 is genius)

IQ is more about fluid intelligence, and it has been shown to correlate positively with increased income.

But as i said, intelligence comes in many forms, and a poor IQ certainly doesn't exclude someone from earning a living successfully. Most visionaries of today's world will most likely have a high IQ however

 

There was a strong case made in the Pulitzer winning book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" that aboriginal individuals are actually superior to first world individuals simply based on the fact that first world societies don't weed out their weak and stupid.

In aboriginal societies, only the strongest truly survive and it benefits the gene pool overall.

 

But there are of course also some benefits to having a bigger gene pool. It gives you better chance for future adaptations in case things change drastically.

 

Also, Physical attributes are more important for darwinian fitness in more primitive societies.. which from an IQ perspective is not ideal.
Innovation in primitive society is a slow process. Fail can literally mean death so new techniques (where IQ plays a significant role) are seldom attempted

 

Really did them a lot of good, huh? It makes sense, but I have trouble calling a conquered civilization "superior" to their conquerers.