IQ (moved subtopic)

there is absolutely no reason to think Vance got in yale law through affirmative action, which definitely never targets white men positively, rather objectively, as proven countless times, the literal opposite routinely happens (asian and white men are immensely discriminated AGAINST in college admission, in the USA, in the last 15-20 years)

because you don't get into yale law as a white man unless you are exceptionally more intelligent than the median, simple as that.

Dunno what to tell you then, maybe the sofa ****ed his brains out. Or maybe it was conservatism. Or meth.

Being articulate and testing well doesn't really make one exceptionally intelligent.

The LSAT you need to get through in yale law as a white man actually requires exceptional intelligence, testing in the top 1% requires top 5% intelligence at the very minimum

Do white men take a different LSAT to everyone else?

Same LSAT, higher threshold to enter if asian or white, and if man

The LSAT isn't very difficult. I shot a 169 on my one try and I've never had top-15% intelligence. I've just always been really great at testing, dating back to 1st grade.

I taught LSAT prep classes through law school. It's a pretty easily beatable test if one is mildly intelligent and not completely inept mathematically.

Would love to see actual IQ data on white Ivy League dipshits.

with 169 you wouldn't enter Yale law as a white man btw

Not saying I had a Yale test score. Just that with no prep, my experience is that it wasn't a difficult test and is a relatively easier one to beat.

I don't mean to demean Vance's booksmarts at all. He might be very intelligent. I'm just saying that having a high LSAT and great high school grades aren't a half-decent gauge of intellect.

I actually think Vance is extremely intelligent. He's just socially awkward and is ill-prepared to answer tough questions at this stage of his career.

This is all SAT takers, 2023

by Luciom P

This is all SAT takers, 2023

If I am reading this chart correctly, it is purporting to show that something like 25% of people who take the SAT have an IQ below 60, and a material percentage have an IQ that is less than or equal to 45.

That strikes me as highly improbable.

Yes your claim is the very tired and debunked "SAT and LSAT don't correlate very much with IQ" (in literature, you claim they aren't "g-loaded"). They actually do and it's a very uncontroversial claim in literature

That's rescaled in every bin, ofc it's a few people.

The chart tells you how races are represented in every IQ range of 5 points, in america, in 2023, among SAT takers.

This in different form

do these charts assume a 1:1 correlation between SAT scores and IQ? otherwise i'm very confused why college board is being sourced for IQ buckets. even if you generously assume such a correlation, the first chart makes close to zero sense

why? it's just the vertical portions of the second one (given a bracket, how many people in it are from race x y z)

LOL IQ

because it's just not an intuitive chart and relies on footnote "proportions are simulated". my bigger issues are assuming SAT = IQ, both because one can significantly increase SAT by studying and also for reasons horror put best:

ye no wonder we deny one of the most replicated things in psychometry has any meaning, after all this is the tabula rasa forum.

But doesn't matter, you still talk about something being quantifiable , you just hate IQ, so you must have some other way to objectively quantify intelligence given you talked about that until 15 minutes ago, which is?

How are we measuring intelligence then, guys? If you don't like IQ, presumably you have a different measure? Or are we just not measuring it at all, because it's unfair that some people are smarter than others?

In that case, the chart was created either by an absolute idiot or by someone who was deliberately trying to push an agenda.

Btw denial of IQ existence, measurability, and predicting validity for outcomes and behaviours is one of the reasons why the left is the actual anti-science side of politics. The others would be anti-nuclear stances, and anti-GMO stances.

It's in the same thread of the other chart, and the "agenda" was answering the question "why the hell do we find a zillion asians and almost no one else at the very very very very top"