IQ (moved subtopic)
^^Hey Luciom, can you remind me again how smart JD Vance is? Above, same, or below the average MAGA chode?
I have no problem with schools using affirmative action to help people like Vance with humble backgrounds.... but maybe not in law school where these idiots start becoming dangerous. And they got to find smarter people then Vance or the whole thing just looks ridiculous and all you're doing is de-valuing your own department.
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 t
Yes I know all that. I’m a very heterodox individual in general so it doesn’t bother me. Think of me as being a Sam Harris style democrat.
Why not? We can infer that something like g exists in the same way that we can infer other scientific phenomena. Not everything in science is a directly observed phenomena. We know that certain particles exist despite never having observed them, I don’t know why we wouldn’t be able to do the same with other quantifiable data like intelligence.
It's a reification.
There is a high correlation between autism and genius iq so the conversation is kind of funny
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.
There are more autistic people with IQ 130+ as a proportion of total autistic people than non autistic people, because autism is very bi modal, we also have many under 70 IQ autistic people unfortunately , but tbh I think the movie "rain man" heavily influenced priors
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)
It was mostly a joke....throwback to when people were doubting Obama's intelligence even though he graduated with honors and taught at a top law school. It is a little concerning Vance is a conservative and did not get a better clerkship after graduation though. I don't think you need to be all that bright to get the best conservative clerk spots because of massive right wing political affirmative action.
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 some
Who would you say has a better chance of becoming a successful entrepreneur?
A) 100 IQ with high EQ
B) 120 IQ with low EQ
Who would you say has the better chance of becoming a successful poker player?
A) The 110 IQ player who studies, plays set hours and has good bankroll management
B) The 130 IQ player who is unwilling to study, goes on tilt, chases losses and drinks at the table
Who would you say has a better chance of becoming a successful entrepreneur?
A) 100 IQ with high EQ
B) 120 IQ with low EQ
Who would you say has the better chance of becoming a successful poker player?
A) The 110 IQ player who studies, plays set hours and has good bankroll management
B) The 130 IQ player who is unwilling to study, goes on tilt, chases losses and drinks at the table
Why don't you keep ceteris paribus as we do with everything else to assess how relevant that is for outcomes?
Take height and NBA performance, keep everything the same and do a 6 feet guy vs a 7 feet guy.
That's how IQ works for performance, like everything else
There is a high correlation between autism and genius iq so the conversation is kind of funny
There’s also a high correlation between autism and sub 85 IQ. I find it kind of silly that both types are put under the same disability tbh, because someone with autism might have very different accommodation needs than another person with autism.
It was mostly a joke....throwback to when people were doubting Obama's intelligence even though he graduated with honors and taught at a top law school. It is a little concerning Vance is a conservative and did not get a better clerkship after graduation though. I don't think you need to be all that bright to get the best conservative clerk spots because of massive right wing political affirmative action.
I have actually used the "jfc Obama was editor of the law journal" as proof he was exceptionally intelligent so many times I lost count, back in the days.
Not 100% sure but Vance went into the private sector , not into clerkship, because it's just a better life
Who would you say has a better chance of becoming a successful entrepreneur?
A) 100 IQ with high EQ
B) 120 IQ with low EQ
Who would you say has the better chance of becoming a successful poker player?
A) The 110 IQ player who studies, plays set hours and has good bankroll management
B) The 130 IQ player who is unwilling to study, goes on tilt, chases losses and drinks at the table
I think the problem with this analysis is that it’s trying to ask a different question than “what are the effects of intelligence on your life”. If your point is that there are other skills people can work on that are not intelligence that can improve their life, then I would say yes.
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
Soft skills go a long way.... because most people are pretty shallow, and some ego stroking goes further than it really should.
Not 100% sure but Vance went into the private sector , not into clerkship, because it's just a better life
He clerked with some judge in Eastern Kentucky first....but that was another joke. i'm sure only the top conservative legal "minds" get that spot. I have doubts on where that places him in the non conservative non naffirmative action space. But that's not really worth discussing. If you ignore how he looks, talks acts, thinks and probably smells, I'm sure Vance is not dumb.
vance is without a doubt a very smart person
i'm sure if you ignored all the incredibly idiotic stuff he said he gain favors with the trump team etc and knew him through school or work then you'd have very different things to say about him
even his former friends from school who've turned on him and doing interviews about how he changed always remarked on how smart he is
Taleb: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific ...
Background : “IQ” is a stale test meant to measure mental capacity but in fact mostly measures extreme unintelligence (learning difficulties), as well as, to a lesser extent [...] how good someone is at taking some type of exams designed by unsophisticated nerds. [...] Designed for learning disabilities, and given that it is not too needed there (see argument further down), it ends up selecting for exam-takers, paper shufflers, obedient IYIs (intellectuals yet idiots), ill adapted for “real life”. (The fact that it correlates with general incompetence makes the overall correlation look high, even when it is random, see Figures 1 and 2.) The concept is poorly thought out mathematically by the field (commits a severe flaw in correlation under fat tails and asymmetries; fails to properly deal with dimensionality; treats the mind as an instrument not a complex system), and seems to be promoted by Racists/eugenists, people bent on showing that some populations have inferior mental abilities based on IQ test=intelligence
whole article's worth a read. even provides a scatterplot with SAT and IQ scores showing the correlation is derived from the left low-IQ tail and little relationship at higher scores, making luciom's earlier chart with precise 5pt interval IQ buckets derived from SAT scores even funnier
Calling Vance dumb is really letting him off the hook imo.
Taleb: IQ is largely a pseudoscientific ...
whole article's worth a read. even provides a scatterplot with SAT and IQ scores showing the correlation is derived from the left low-IQ tail and little relationship at higher scores, making luciom's earlier chart with precise 5pt interval IQ buckets derived from SAT scores even funnier
I would highly disagree this article is worth a read. His epistemological humility is very low. He seems to be an epistemological narcissist if anything, assuming that some wild claims he makes are not even worth sourcing.
He clerked with some judge in Eastern Kentucky first....but that was another joke. i'm sure only the top conservative legal "minds" get that spot. I have doubts on where that places him in the non conservative non naffirmative action space. But that's not really worth discussing. If you ignore how he looks, talks acts, thinks and probably smells, I'm sure Vance is not dumb.
The way Vance talks thinks and act politically isn't my tribe, but it's still a very decent tribe compared with many leftist tribes.
Like I mean, it's clear he is close to pareto-better than Walz. We can draw 500 axis and Vance would be objectively a better person than Walz in what , 480 or 490 cases? That is, if you examine it from any position which isn't very leftist, otherwise it's viceversa.
You are the kind of person who decided that all rightwing positions are intellectually illegitimate and you intellectually masturbate over that continuously
Any measurable outcome normal people consider positive in life.
Like
1) not going to prison
2) life expectancy
3) income
4) wealth (not the same as 3) as it depends on your saving rate and how you invest)
5) health (managing any chronic health problem requires IQ)
And so on.
The way Vance talks thinks and act politically isn't my tribe, but it's still a very decent tribe compared with many leftist tribes.
Like I mean, it's clear he is close to pareto-better than Walz. We can draw 500 axis and Vance would be objectively a better person than Walz in what , 480 or 490 cases? That is, if you examine it from any position which isn't very leftist, otherwise it's viceversa.
You are the kind of person who decided that al
I'm not saying anything Vance doesn't know. Conservatives are the stupid party, he's more aware of it than anyone, that's why he's changed so much on Trump, social issues etc.
Why don't you keep ceteris paribus as we do with everything else to assess how relevant that is for outcomes?
Take height and NBA performance, keep everything the same and do a 6 feet guy vs a 7 feet guy.
I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had if everything except IQ is the same. If you take two people with the same interests, raised under the same conditions, with the same opportunities, the same level of emotional maturity and so forth, then it seems evident that the person with the higher IQ would be more likely to succeed in a given situation. You could run the same experiment with both people having the same IQ and different levels of emotional maturity, and there you would also find an imbalance. The question is: which is a better predictor? And to what extent?
Does a 7 foot basketball player have an advantage of over the 6 foot player if all things are equal (shooting, dribbling, passing, defense, athleticism, decision making, court vision, work ethic, teammates, coach, etc)? Obviously.
