IQ (moved subtopic)

Without going into the weeds on this, I'm not even sure what I'd classify as innate and what I'd classify as learned. If innate intelligence is the capacity for learning (with all that entails - deductive logic, critical thinking, etc. etc.) then I'd expect those with a higher innate intelligence to have learned more though.

Can you extract these and open an IQ thread?

Good idea. You could call it "The Bell Curve".

I prefer "for whom the curve tolls"

Lol. I thought that was pretty good, so I googled it. I see it wasn't yours.

by smartDFS P

we already know from Cremieux Recueil that nutrition has no impact:

Spoiler

Show

it has been estimated that every 7 hours of study can improve your SAT score by ~40 points, which should (per this conversion chart) equate to at least ~3 IQ points gain. extrapolate those gains to 25+ hours of study and it's clear we should be diverting all pregnancy nutrition and parks funding -- perhaps even part of the medicare budget -- to subsidize SAT tutors for all a

Show More...

My claim is actually about nutrition during pregnancy which is quite a different one and it isn't predicated on the idea that IQs in 2010 are higher than in 1950 because of that, rather that by fixing occasional severe problems we can increase median IQ. Ie for most people it wouldn't matter but it could be very good for a few of them. Similarly to avoiding heavy smoking or drinking during pregnancy.

Ofc it would still just be a working hypothesis to be tested throughly and so on which is why we need very accurate measurements of IQ (or however else you want to call quantifiable measurement of intelligence)

Great artists steal

Goddammit the ginger whinger is gonna try and tear the country down when he loses the election to make sure he don't face his sentence, now the judge deferred sentencing.

GL America

Not necessarily true, just that perhaps the targeting with outcome fixing policies at the level of college and job placement is waaaaaaaay too late to actually fix outcomes.

The difference can be already gigantic at 36 months (here the differentiating factor is SES, but the idea is clear i hope)

Based on detailed analyses of mothers’ speech to infants at home, these studies used longitudinal designs to identify features of maternal speech that predict language outcome measures. Hart and Risley found that by 36 months, the higher-SES children in their sample spoke twice as many words as the lower-SES children. But their most remarkable finding was the extreme variation in amounts of child-directed speech among families at different SES levels, differences that were correlated with children's early vocabulary and also predictive of later school performance (Walker, Greenwood, Hart & Carta, 1994). According to Hoff (2003), it was the quality of infants’ early language environment that actually mediated the link between SES and children's vocabulary knowledge.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article....

to be clear a gap of that size is only fixable by damaging the higher SES 3 years old a lot on purpose. If you allow the 3y old higher SES kid to keep developing normally at that point, you can throw 500k/year to the other one and he won't ever fix the entire gap

Yes that’s my point, we have to figure out the right interventions and oftentimes this is earlier.

By the way, this is an argument AGAINST libertarianism, because laissez-faire economics will almost never fix this. The sorts of developmental disadvantages highlighted here are some of the earliest arguments that (non-Marxist) socialists used to point out why generational disadvantages existed.

With the financial support of several businessmen from Manchester, in 1810 Owen purchased Dale's four textile factories in New Lanark for £60,000. Under Owen's control, the Chorton Twist Company expanded rapidly. However, Robert Owen was not only concerned with making money, he was also interested in creating a new type of community at New Lanark. He became highly critical of factory owners to employ young children: "In the manufacturing districts it is common for parents to send their children of both sexes at seven or eight years of age, in winter as well as summer, at six o'clock in the morning, sometimes of course in the dark, and occasionally amidst frost and snow, to enter the manufactories, which are often heated to a high temperature, and contain an atmosphere far from being the most favourable to human life, and in which all those employed in them very frequently continue until twelve o'clock at noon, when an hour is allowed for dinner, after which they return to remain, in a majority of cases, till eight o'clock at night." (7)

Owen set out to make New Lanark an experiment in philanthropic management from the outset. Owen believed that a person's character is formed by the effects of their environment. Owen was convinced that if he created the right environment, he could produce rational, good and humane people. Owen argued that people were naturally good but they were corrupted by the harsh way they were treated. For example, Owen was a strong opponent of physical punishment in schools and factories and immediately banned its use in New Lanark. (8)

David Dale had originally built a large number of houses close to his factories in New Lanark. By the time Owen arrived, over 2,000 people lived in New Lanark village. One of the first decisions took when he became owner of New Lanark was to order the building of a school. Owen was convinced that education was crucially important in developing the type of person he wanted. He stopped employing children under ten and reduced their labour to ten hours a day. The young children went to the nursery and infant schools that Owen had built. Older children worked in the factory but also had to attend his secondary school for part of the day. (9)

George Combe, an educator who was unsympathetic to Owen's views generally, visited New Lanark during this period. "We saw them romping and playing in great spirits. The noise was prodigious, but it was the full chorus of mirth and kindliness." Combe explained that Owen had ordered £500 worth of "transparent pictures representing objects interesting to the youthful mind" so that children could "form ideas at the same time that they learn words". Combe went on to argue that the greatest lessons Owen wished the children to learn were "that life may be enjoyed, and that each may make his own happiness consistent with that of all the others." (10)

https://spartacus-educational.com/IRowen...

I don't recall having to provide my IQ when taking standardized tests. How is anyone getting this info in order to see if there is a correlation?

This is a very subjective experience but has broadly defined me in my familial hierarchy

My brother, by all measures, has a higher IQ than me. Higher grades, standardized test scores, better mathematical skills, beat me in every mental competition growing up, still better than me at games.

Hes also somewhat Autistic and has incredibly low emotional and social IQ. I've leveraged my social IQ to surpass him professionally. I work with top level engineers and scientists and have built up a lot of professional capital and respect. I could have told you when I was 12 I had more "street smarts" than him, but what does that even mean? How can you quantify social or emotional intelligence?

In my experience, in a high level corporate environment, social and emotional intelligence are more represented than a number on an IQ test.

Ok, but if you had 80 IQ you never would have come close to what you achieved professionally. All things being equal, IQ will have a gigantic impact. And there is not good evidence that social and emotional intelligence is represented in a g-score.

At a comprehensive level I'm functionally more intelligent than my brother so if his IQ is 140 and mine is 120 then what are we even measuring?

And if the overarching question is, what are we even measuring, and the data can effectively be used as a weapon for racism, how beneficial is measuring IQ?

@checkraise it's not an argument against libertarianism because private donors need this info to direct their donation to working causes as well.

There is a lot of charity in libertarianism, it's just not state violently mandated charity.

People in the USA already donate more (as a % of their income) than in any other first world country, because of lower taxation.

It can't be used for racism it actually can be used by people who want to mandate charity more!

If blacks are in worse conditions because of worse intelligence (and that's something out of their control) you have FEWER reasons to justify leaving them there, that if you are able to claim they are making mistakes and so they "deserve" their worse outcomes.

Do you realize that?

No you are not functionally more intelligent. If his IQ is 140 because he can perform more and faster calculations than you, then by intelligence metrics (g-score) he is more intelligent than you.

On the other hand, you might be more successful due to factors not including intelligence. I find social and emotional intelligence to be equivocating when compared to what IQ measures.

Furthermore, 120 IQ may allow you to perform certain tasks someone with 80 IQ could simply never perform, which relative to having a 140 IQ there are not so many tasks they can perform that you can’t. So minimum IQ scores may be a barrier to entry as well as improve certain abilities to do certain tasks.

Checkraise do you realize you are very minoritarian in your political tribe with your takes? While basically 100% of college educated rightwing people would agree with you on this topic, how many leftwing people do you think would?

And this is like one of the fundamental pillar to understand human beings, a foundational topic at the very core of any political system.

Do you know that this very topic is possibly "the one" which pushed people to create the IDW?

I'm not sure I would lean on g score as some sort of scientific measure.

I had this exact same experience, but w/ my cousin (who I grew up with and is 3 years older). High genius level IQ, always straight A's at the highest classes in HS/college, and was a good board game strategist. He could solve rubik's cubes in under 30 secs (before all the hacks were known 😉 ). He's also on the spectrum (doesn't make eye contact), has extremely low social IQ, etc... In about every way, professionally, socially, romantically, he's failed, or really struggled, and I've been the opposite in every way.

I mean cordie is saying an higher IQ, *but autistic*, person could have a worse life.

Sure.

Now do someone with absolutely no autism but 20 more points of IQ given that's what we are talking about...

The idea that truly 3 sigma or better intelligent people are all socially handicapped and/or autistic is just cope.

Not trying to derail or butt in... just wanted to confirm a similar experience.

But I'd probably agree that no autism and IQ can be an indicator. I'm not entirely sure if it's definitive though, but I've only taken a cursory look at this data in the past.

most autists would happily trade 20 points of IQ to function like a normie in social settings

and fully agree that in large organizations, once you meet the minimum thresholds of intelligence, social skills become the greatest skill to have

i have 3 siblings, the two which are indisputably smarter, they are far less successful than the other two who are not quite as smart but much more skilled socially