IQ is very importan-

[Anonymous No.13292936]

Why is this genius not talked about more? Was there a book released by him that showcases his groundbreaking discovery?

[Anonymous No.13293365]

When is his next book? I need more Taleb in my life.

[Anonymous No.13293380]

>>13292936
>IQ is less predictive of success at extremely high levels
>therefore IQ is wrong

[Anonymous No.13293400]

>>13293380
The real subversion is what you see as "success"
Get the money fuck the hookers build your house.
Iq never mattered and never will.

[Anonymous No.13293406]

Why haven't you gone hiking with Taleb yet?

[Anonymous No.13293410]

>>13293380
That's not what he says. His view is that IQ is best for classifying those at the lower end of the intelligence spectrum and has little relevance past 100 IQ.

[Anonymous No.13293419]

>>13292936
He liked my tweet once.

I never felt so smart.

[Anonymous No.13293422]

>>13293406
He's genuinely intelligent and intellectually innovative, but he's a pain in the ass as a person. Just look at his Twitter.

[Anonymous No.13293425]

>>13292936
>Was there a book released by him that showcases his groundbreaking discovery?
The black swan

[Anonymous No.13293439]

>>13293422

He seems like a nice guy to me.

[Anonymous No.13293445]

>>13293410
He's correct.

But, as Molyneux and others point out (and they are correct at this particular aspect) it's precisely the fact that Westerners are importing people from the lower end that is the big political question when it comes to IQ. Wouldn't it make more sense to import Chinese and Japanese people instead of Muslims and Africans?

I am Italian-Brazilian, and the average IQ in my country is 85-90. When and if I move to Italy, I will definitely *not* want it to start importing non-Italian Brazilians, or any other similar people. Low IQ people are dangerous, and we Brazilians are forced to live with that danger every single day.

But when it comes to the level of the individual, and the measuring the chances of, say, someone becoming rich or an intellectual, then IQ really is irrelevant after around 100. I think it probably only really matters in Maths and so on, but then again there are better tests than IQ, such as, well, Math tests...

[Anonymous No.13293449]

>>13292936
Swans dude

[Anonymous No.13293504]

>>13293445
>Wouldn't it make more sense to import Chinese and Japanese people instead of Muslims and Africans?
What do you mean? African immigrants to the US have a higher educational attainment rate than the native population. I think something like 47% of immigrants from nigeria to the US have a bachelor's degree or higher, and are usually very high IQ. This is because the people who can afford to emigrate from nigeria into the US are usually upper-class and consequently intelligent.
>I am Italian-Brazilian, and the average IQ in my country is 85-90. When and if I move to Italy, I will definitely *not* want it to start importing non-Italian Brazilians, or any other similar people. Low IQ people are dangerous, and we Brazilians are forced to live with that danger every single day.
That's retarded. If you don't want low IQ people to emigrate to your country you simply block out low IQ people from coming, not a whole nation or race. Why don't you advocate for an immigration policy based on IQ tests?

[Anonymous No.13293568]

>>13293504
I am talking about Somalis in Sweden, not Africans in the U.S.

>Why don't you advocate for an immigration policy based on IQ tests?

Would make a lot more sense than the contemporary politics adopted by many European countries, don't you think?

[Anonymous No.13293625]

>>13292936
Gayleb's IQ nonsense got BTFO by Langan

[Anonymous No.13293633]

>>13293504
That policy would drain the country of intellectuals and leave it to the whims of the 'International Community'. In fact this is exactly what is happening right now. We're done stealing resources from those countries, now we're also stealing humans. It's brilliant really and nobody talks about it.

[Anonymous No.13294187]

>>13292936
He has been thoroughly refuted already.
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/

[Anonymous No.13294360]

>>13293625
this dude can't even write a coherent sentence, stop.

[Anonymous No.13294390]

I was once fooled by his paper on GMOs because of his confidence and boldness of an elephant barging into the glass house. After reading more on that topic I've realized that his paper was bullshit so I don't really want to ever trust him again.

[Anonymous No.13294408]

>>13293625
>center aligned text
in the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.13294417]

>>13294360
>>13294408
NOT AN ARGUMENT

[Anonymous No.13294702]

>>13293625
>IQ include a very wide variety of mental tasks that appear in a wide variety of real-world constructs.
Doesn't list any "real world constructs"
>nations with low mean IQ's also have empirically verified histories of failure to achieve high technology, economic prosperity, rational social equilibria, and so on."
Boomer statement that doesn't take into account resources, geographical location, and political climate.
>"intelligence is a valid concept, and IQ is not entirely vacuous with respect to it.]"
Well, how connected is it Langan?
>"50% correlation between IQ and success"
Here he claims to know basic statistics and acts like this correlation means anything without statistical significance.
>Hardcore SJWs
Ah yes, this is surely the issue, not the lack of "meaningful correlation."
>g factor
The multiple factors he speaks about don't have statistically significant correlations like he claims they do. Once again, Langan shows that he lacks basic understanding of statistics.
>"Taleb is conflating outcome equality, which has been legislated in academic, economic, and professional contexts, with mental ability."
Flat out wrong here, considering that there is no statistically significant correlation with "successful outcome" and IQ.

[Anonymous No.13294816]

>>13292936
>>13293400
Sean Last refuted Taleb and Taleb blocked him on twitter over it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSXYhnrwjQE
>>13293445
>then IQ really is irrelevant after around 100
that's not true in the slightest

[Anonymous No.13294844]

>>13293625
I agree with most of what Lagan is talking about, but also it is very much in his own best interest to defend the percieved validity of IQ tests

[Anonymous No.13294883]

>>13294702
your whole post is one leftist cope after another

[Anonymous No.13294924]

>>13294883
Where's your argument?
>>13294816
Never heard of this guy. Just watched the video and he probably blocked this brainlet because he can't understand what "predictive" means.

[Anonymous No.13294937]

>>13294924
read this
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/

[Anonymous No.13294940]

Is caring about IQ burgerpunk?

[Anonymous No.13294944]

Because he got completely shit on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1jsWrQu7CQ&t=2234s

[Anonymous No.13294949]

>>13294924
Sean Last makes great content. He used to be with alt-hype, so that's why he's not fully known.

[Anonymous No.13294959]

>>13294937
that's Sean Last's article the video is based on

>>13294924
>Never heard of this guy. Just watched the video and he probably blocked this brainlet because he can't understand what "predictive" means.
Sure thing nobody.

[Anonymous No.13294964]

>>13293445

He's wrong ; the relationship between IQ and success remains linear past 100 IQ

[Anonymous No.13294965]

I was with him on questioning IQ, then he went full tard with his "GENES DON'T EXIST, TABULA RASA, BLACKS HAVE IT BAD ENOUGH SO WE DON'T NEED TO LOOK INTO THIS".

[Anonymous No.13294981]

>>13294937
I read the article. This guy also has no idea how basic statistics work. Positive correlations aren't the same thing as statistical significance. You can't make predictions with just positive correlation. He admits IQ isn't actually predictive but clings to the notion that it could still be useful because it has some (non significant) connection to things we associate with success.

[Anonymous No.13294994]

>>13294964
source.
>>13294959
>>13294949
wasn't an insult, I just didn't know who he was.

[Anonymous No.13294998]

>>13294981
IQ predicts almost every outcome. If you want to get rid of IQ tests, you should also get rid of SATs, since they're much worse than IQ tests in predicting life outcomes.

[Anonymous No.13295004]

>>13294944
I stopped watching this at the replication rate argument where compares replication rates of entire fields with the correlation between IQ and "success." He slyly forgets to mention that when something isn't replicable in these fields, it's tossed. Just cause the replication rate is at 55% doesn't mean they use the shit they can't replicate.

[Anonymous No.13295007]

>>13294994
>wasn't an insult, I just didn't know who he was.
A guy with a doctorate in psychology and statistics

[Anonymous No.13295026]

>>13294998
IQ doesn't actually predict those outcomes. And fine, lets get rid of SATs.
>>13294390
I don't follow Taleb closely, I'm interested in this GMO stuff. What did he say that was complete bullshit?
>>13294940
What's burgerpunk? I missed this one.

[Anonymous No.13295041]

>>13295007
I can't find anything about his PhD in either of those subjects.

[Anonymous No.13295048]

>>13295026
And what... we can no longer possess any knowledge about the world, if it's not correct 100% of the time? Are we going to play lottery to decide who gets to go to universities to please your leftist feelings?

[Anonymous No.13295051]

>>13295026
I am from South Korea. Korean SAT is ALL, EVERY PART of our life. that is literally nonsense.

[Anonymous No.13295104]

ANOTHER FUCKING IQ THREAD

[Anonymous No.13295116]

>>13293380
>outliers disprove the trend
People who deny iq don’t understand the danger presented by the lowering of it. Mankind is like a cart dragged by the intelligent like beasts of burden, if we overload the cart the ox will collapse.

[Anonymous No.13295120]

>>13295048
Yes, my man, for something to be true, it has to be true 100% of the time and no, pure truth is not the determinant by which human beings navigate the universe. We generally act on that which is true until it is proven false (when talking about truth). But we don't care about truth and stuff like your statements on IQ and your "leftist feelings" strawman shows this. What's so special about (public) universities that we need to vet people by a non significant standard? If they can't succeed in university, won't they flunk out anyway?

[Anonymous No.13295122]

>>13295104
Sit the fuck down dummy.

[Anonymous No.13295126]

>>13293422
>He's a pain in the ass as a person.
>Just look at this Twitter.
Okay.

[Anonymous No.13295132]

>>13295120
Iq is significant. You might believe there’s more to iq than genetics, but you can’t deny that countries with lower iqs are worse off or the data that shows higher iq increases your chances of academic and financial success. Basically kys.

[Anonymous No.13295135]

>>13295120
You're a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.13295136]

>>13294187
This didn't refute anything.

[Anonymous No.13295141]

>>13294998
>IQ predicts almost every outcome.
Stopped there.

[Anonymous No.13295142]

>>13295051
That sounds like a government problem.

[Anonymous No.13295152]

>>13295132
Countries with smaller economies, infrastructure, and worse education have lower iq's and perform worse than larger ones? Damn, I'm shocked. The data doesn't show that it increases your chances, There are plenty of factors that you choose to conveniently ignore. IQ is not statistically significant and it has not been shown to "increase your chance of academic and financial success."
>>13295135
Seething.

[Anonymous No.13295154]

>>13295152
>data that shows higher iqs having more financial and academic success on average doesn’t mean higher iq increases your chances of success
Seriously though you idiots are fucking killing us

[Anonymous No.13295161]

>>13293380
>I have a lot vested in the IQ narrative so any critique of it in anyway is really going to set me off. I think the only fair recourse is talking past everyone and addressing strawman issues I imagine were said.

[Anonymous No.13295166]

>>13295161
What does he have vested in the iq narrative? You’re the one who has an agenda.

[Anonymous No.13295198]

>>13295152
Zimbabwe had higher GDP per capita than South Korea in 1960. But as soon as South Korea was introduced to the global market, they quickly rose to become one of the richest countries on earth.
Same with Jews and Japanese in USA, they both suffered greatly during world war 2, but quickly rose to become highest earning groups in the country. Meanwhile, blacks have been in this country for 400 years and they still haven't caught up.

[Anonymous No.13295211]

>>13295198
Blacks are behind even native americans who haven’t even had contact with most of the world for very long.

[Anonymous No.13295225]

>>13295004
Why would they toss it? And that's one point in a 90 minute video.

[Anonymous No.13295232]

>>13295166
>You’re the one who has an agenda.
You know this from my one post? Go ahead and tell me my agenda, Professor X. I am near positive you don't have a clue what my politics are.

>What does he have vested in the iq narrative?
Conservative types A: want to shill for the IQ narrative out of political tribalism. Enemy tribe doesn't like IQ and enemy tribe is evil and wrong in every way, therefore IQ must be infallible.

B: have a cultural drive to believe in a fantasy of natural order, justified natural hierarchy, just world, societal problems coming from within individual corruption, idealization of social superiors (slave mentality). Basically the opposite of the tabula rasa stupidity of the left. Both extremes are horribly wrong. People project these priors on to the narrative of IQ and push it to be stronger than it really is. The same way a leftist will scream your ear off about the very real and notable flaw of the Flynn Effect to defend their unspoken tabula rasa priors. Ideologues push things too far.

[Anonymous No.13295237]

>>13295120
Yes. Conceivably a better test is possible, but IQ is simply an approximation of how your brain works. IQ cannot say how your brain works or analyze your thought-process/reasoning. To dismiss it as useless because of that is silly, but to view it dogma is also silly.

[Anonymous No.13295247]

>>13295154
Thanks for showing us you don't understand statistics and cause and effect.
>>13295161
What?
>>13295198
False comparison. Japanese and Jews weren't weren't treated in the same manner as blacks in America. 245 years of slavery, followed by 200 years Jim Crow, and then 50 years of false legal equality. Hard to catch up when you're running a race with no legs.

[Anonymous No.13295251]

>>13295136
why not?

[Anonymous No.13295262]

>>13295247
You're just telling stories about black oppression, when it actually doesn't explain their current status.
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/06/11/slavery-and-modern-black-poverty/

[Anonymous No.13295268]

>>13295262
>https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/06/11/slavery-and-modern-black-poverty/
Lol the first paragraph was all you need to say to any SJW.

[Anonymous No.13295278]

>>13293439
Lmao

[Anonymous No.13295286]

>>13295225
If something isn't replicable in a scientific field, scientists first try to find why that's the case. If they cannot, they deem that thing unreliable. Basing any further research or making any implications with that unreliable thing leads to unfounded or false confusions. By "tossing" it, I mean, they don't make true conclusions from the non-replicable.

[Anonymous No.13295297]

>>13295286
I'm not trying to be retarded or coy, but why would that disprove the percentage? Those tests are essentially inconclusive, correct and should be dismissed as such.

[Anonymous No.13295303]

>>13295237
How does IQ approximate how a brain functions?

[Anonymous No.13295309]

>>13295232
I can tell you’re anti iq and I feel safe in assuming it’s about race politics and substantiating a view of equality. How dishonest can you lefties be, you’re not replying to him to try to be objective on the topic, you have a goal of deconstructing iq.

How about a third reason to support iq, if it’s genuine then there is a risk to our personal safety from the lowering of it in a technology dependent society. Conversely the low iq could fear for their personal safety and that’s why they attack it, which is stupid and short sighted, as you would expect of the low iq. The high iq can make it work for all of us if we stop trying to make it harder. You have personal responsibility to your species that means not doing whatever you want all the time boo fucking hoo that shouldn’t be news.

What is the flaw of the flynn effect you’re referring to exactly?

and don’t you dare fucking say you’re not left.

>>13295247
Please elaborate on how I don’t understand statistics and cause and effect. Also japanese americans had all their possessions and property seized from them less than 100 years ago during ww2. That’s more recent than that one black town that burned that you desperately tout as the golden proof of your ideas about oppression.

[Anonymous No.13295311]

>>13295004
He literally addresses your argument in the very video you were supposedly watching.

[Anonymous No.13295313]

>>13295303
Because the test aims to see how your brain answers the questions not to see if you know the correct answers to certain patterns.

[Anonymous No.13295314]

>>13295309
Oh and I forgot, if some races are lower iq then they are an unfair burden on the higher iq races.

[Anonymous No.13295316]

>>13295262
So you're telling me it doesn't factor in at all? What does explain it then?

[Anonymous No.13295321]

>>13295303
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

[Anonymous No.13295324]

>>13295311
People would rather be safe and prove him wrong due to ideological reasons than actually think. If the test was done among subsets of dogs nobody would bat an eye.

[Anonymous No.13295327]

>>13295316
read the article, Jesus. and u clearly have no understand of Feudalism in the Middle Ages because you could say the same for anyone who had ancestors living in feudal systems.

[Anonymous No.13295330]

>>13295314
You're displaying your low IQ with posts like these.

[Anonymous No.13295337]

>>13295330
So now you admit it's real at least lol.

[Anonymous No.13295362]

>>13295330
I never claimed to be high iq.

[Anonymous No.13295385]

>>13295297
I need a little clarification, which percentage? IQ or the replication percentages?
>>13295311
Video is an hour long, tell me what he says.
>>13295313
I thought there were just right answers and wrong answers. Isn't it the case that the more correct answers you get, the higher score you receive?

[Anonymous No.13295391]

>>13295385
It's also timed, but yeah. However, those right and wrong answers and time aim to show how your brain works not if you understand patterns or not.

[Anonymous No.13295448]

>>13295262
>>13295327
I read it. The author first compares the descendents of free blacks to the descendents of enslaves blacks and says, "they, caught up" and therefore oppression/slavery wasn't their problem. How come this article didn't compare blacks and white in general from this time period? As for when the author does compare blacks and whites, he uses an employment stat that doesn't take into account the type of employment and the income from each group. This is stat manipulation to create a historical narrative.

[Anonymous No.13295454]

>>13295448
https://twitter.com/Sean84076698
Why don't you ask him anon?

[Anonymous No.13295461]

>>13295391
How the brain works in what way though? Creativity? Imagination? Understanding? Can that be found through testing of pattern observation skill? I'm genuinely

[Anonymous No.13295473]

>>13295461
No there's actually been no meaningful correlation in terms of creativity and IQ. Here's the Wiki paragraph on the G-factor

>The g factor (also known as general intelligence, general mental ability or general intelligence factor) is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities and human intelligence. It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks. The g factor typically accounts for 40 to 50 percent of the between-individual performance differences on a given cognitive test, and composite scores ("IQ scores") based on many tests are frequently regarded as estimates of individuals' standing on the g factor.[1] The terms IQ, general intelligence, general cognitive ability, general mental ability, or simply intelligence are often used interchangeably to refer to this common core shared by cognitive tests.[2] The g factor targets a particular measure of general intelligence

[Anonymous No.13295500]

>>13295473
Then it's more of a test of your performance of these tasks than something that does show the mind works, then, no?

[Anonymous No.13295502]

>>13295309
>I can tell you’re anti iq and I feel safe in assuming it’s about race politics and substantiating a view of equality.
Uh, yep as I figured, you assume I'm some strawman SJW based on gut heuristics.

To lay it on the table, I am a leftist and come from a left win background. Self-identified socialist and Marxist. On the other hand, I'm also alt-right (nazbol gang?). And I'm particularly alt-right because I believe in HBD, aka I'm racist. Yeah it's weird, but there it is. No I am not strictly anti-IQ. I just don't worship it.

I have heard the arguments of inborn intelligence differences in races and I believe them. I just don't believe them because of some faggy conservative instinct to hate different people, muh tradition, chauvinism, or lobster hierarchy. I believe in eugenics and don't support dysgenic policy like mass immigration. But I don't accept that IQ is some quantifiable perfect measure of intelligence and worth or share the amount of faith some people put in the mythology of g.

I don't want to live in a Gattaca society based on fucking IQ.

>How about a third reason to support iq, if it’s genuine then there is a risk to our personal safety from the lowering of it in a technology dependent society.
I'm very concerned with this. But my vague understanding is this is not Taleb's point. As I said, people are talking past others to give their anti-SJW IQ sermon. His point was that IQ does not perfectly correlate to higher achievement/practical intelligence like the mythology pretends on the upper levels.

Look at Terence Tao. One of the most IQ smart men on earth. I'm not trying to hate on his talents, but what has he really done? Compared with moderate IQ virgin Richard Feynman?

>What is the flaw of the flynn effect you’re referring to exactly?
It shows a flaw in the number system as objective measure. If we took the effect seriously we would conclude our grandfathers in the 1930s were functionally retarded compared to today's brain genius supermen.

Likewise I remember once someone pointing out that the 60 IQ attributed to certain African populations was retarded to the level of needing a caretaker in the USA. One of the Bell Curve guys (or Rushton) responded that white populations with a 60 IQ have serious developmental disorders usually, and blacks are more like developmentally fine perpetual teenagers. This is... somewhat believable. But I think it's a stretch.

A simpler conclusion is to just accept there is a flaw in the IQ test's measure of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.13295516]

>>13295500
Yes, but your performance is an attempt to understand how your mind works. I think you misunderstood my original point. I meant in the very obvious sense that this test was supposed to say more than does he understand the patterns, unlike a math test on calculus which shows your knowledge on calc, this test isn't meant to only show your knowledge on patterns.

[Anonymous No.13295524]

Last time there was a thread about this someone posted a video debunking Taleb's points about IQ. The video said IQ in fact does have a positive relationship with income and net worth and that the paper Taleb cites shows that. But what I never got about that video is that, even if the median IQ does relate to the median net worth, does that really prove Taleb wrong? Is the median really that useful if the variation is as wide as the paper also says? It seems to me like the guy in the video made a mistake, or am I wrong? Please explain to this confused anon

[Anonymous No.13295532]

>>13295516
I see. I get your points now.

[Anonymous No.13295569]

>>13295502
>but what has he really done?
Mathematics and a lot of that.
This is a really stupid argument as it assumed that being really intelligent means succeeding at some task with high relevancy to to the current population.
But this is just absurd. Tao is one of the greater mathematicians alive today, he clearly has suceeded in his area of research, but dismissing him because his work isn't as publicly visible as Feynman's is just really retarded.

Mathematics has always been a topic far ahead of the curve and it's history is litered by people who at their time "what has he really done?" was an accurate description, but their ideas turned out to radically change the world.
I mean Euclid was just fucking around with lines, and the non euclidian geometry was literally just mental masturbation until it suddenly was relevant in relativity.

Critiquing IQ on the basis of Tao not being as relevant as Feynman, is just nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.13295573]

>>13295524
Some people with high IQ might choose to live a simple life or might have lack of motivation to participate in high income types of jobs.
Think of IQ as potential, rather than definite outcome. For example, Usain Bolt might have chosen to never run in his life, but that doesn't mean he's not capable of it. On the other hand a handicapped person could never run no matter how hard he tried.

[Anonymous No.13295580]

>>13295569
> What has Tao really done?
The fucking state of /lit.

[Anonymous No.13295667]

>>13295573
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5muVMrLiso&t=208s

I was talking about this video. They say they're debunking Taleb and some other guy by showing that the very paper Taleb cites contains within it data that contradicts Taleb's point.

What I didn't understand is that, if you look at the scatterplot, you can see that there is a weak relationship between IQ and income/net worth, but beyond a certain amount of money, the chart is so messy that it looks meaningless. This is supposed to prove that IQ is only useful in determining people who are subnormal and that it is not useful as a measure of success.

The guy in the video shows the next data which is a median of all IQ group's income and net worth, which shows a positive value. He then says that this shows Taleb and the other guy were misleading people about the paper since the paper contradicts their argument. If the median value goes up as the IQ goes up, that's a positive relationship and Taleb is wrong.

This is what I don't get because Taleb wasn't looking at the whole thing; he was looking at the graph above 40k income. And also, isn't just looking at the amount of noise on the scatterplot enough to show that the data is meaningless? Even if there's a positive relationship, and the median goes up as IQ goes up, if it's doing so in a set of data with such high variance, isn't it moot? I'm not that knowledgeable about statistics but don't you doubt the value of data if it is that messy?

[Anonymous No.13295674]

>>13295667
This isn't the Taleb one. The taleb one was the JF Gariepy one and I haven't watched that fully yet.

[Anonymous No.13295707]

>>13295667
>And also, isn't just looking at the amount of noise on the scatterplot enough to show that the data is meaningless?
Why would it be? The point of a correlation is to extract some meaningful average of the """"noise"""".
It is NOT noise in the data, as noise would be random, which would suggest a correlation of zero, which the calculation shows isn't the case.

The high variance just means that you have lower confidences with smaller populations and sure, if the point of the debate was "how well can judge an individuals income by their IQ" this would be a pretty hard blow out, but the question was whether IQ was as meaningful above a certain threshold as it is below.
The data shown at 4:20 suggest that going above 100, there is still a correlation between IQ and income, even if you go above 100, if Taleb were right the income median should stop growing past 100, as to his claim IQ would become meaningless at that point.

[Anonymous No.13295751]

>>13295707
Ok, thanks for explaining

[Anonymous No.13295864]

>>13295707
Well done, making the distinction between "how well can judge an individuals income by their IQ" (which implies modulation by temperament, heritability, whethe it is even possible to improve IQ over one lifetime, etc) and "whether accuracy diminishes above certain thresholds (or even whether it holds no water as a predictive tool for certain thresholds" is an important one to be made and the root of many discussions in which people talk past each other and make assumptions about each other's beliefs and motives.

[Anonymous No.13295885]

>>13295502
>that the 60 IQ attributed to certain African populations was retarded to the level of needing a caretaker in the USA
Well there are black tribes that don’t have fire.

[Anonymous No.13295886]

>>13293504
Only high achieving africans are let into the country, so obviously the africans in the country will score higher.

[Anonymous No.13295887]

>>13295885
So?

[Anonymous No.13295891]

>>13295887
So that’s pretty fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.13295898]

>>13295886
North Africans are also caucasoids not negroids. Caucasoids have always been superior, that’s why Asia has always dominated by Indian culture and religion.

[Anonymous No.13295991]

>>13293445
Racial self deprecation is the most cucked thing one can do

[Anonymous No.13296213]

A-any good books on statistics for retards?

[Anonymous No.13296707]

>>13295667
>>13295667
iq having a correlation with income isnt what matters.

it has to have just as strong a correlation below 100 as it does above 100 to be an actual binomial distribution, which it simply does not. If it correlates with income, but r = 0.2, it's not nearly as good a metric as people purport it is --- which is taleb's point.
it's obvious you retards didnt even read his article.

[Anonymous No.13296711]

>>13294964
post a study