/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10469684]

Has one made ever BTFO an entire discipline the way Taleb has psychology?

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1106630261842894849

[Anonymous No.10469688]

>>10469684
Taleb is in no position to call anyone unscientific.

[Anonymous No.10469691]

But there is an obvious correlation from that graph

[Anonymous No.10469704]

>>10469684
>let me misrepresent data to conform to my ideological delusions
Also, literally who?

[Anonymous No.10469709]

>>10469704
He was a fanboy of mandelbrot tried to ride on his coat tails to sell his book "the black swan" about statistical outluers or something

Never read it so I can't comment more.

[Anonymous No.10469757]

>>10469704
Everybody does that, cracker

[Anonymous No.10469799]

>>10469684
The mean of plotted IQs on the chart is not equal to 100. Can anyone explain how this works?

[Anonymous No.10469814]

>>10469799
How in IQ science do you for holy fucking fuckness expect distribution of intelligence to be bell curve?

[Anonymous No.10469818]

Wat

[Anonymous No.10470896]

>>10469691
You do know that correlation is mathematically defined right? People don't just eyeball and say "yeah seems correlated"

[Anonymous No.10470911]

>>10470896
correlation is mathematically defined right? LOL

[Anonymous No.10470917]

>>10469684
I guess if you have no idea what any of that means it would seem like a "BTFO." I think if this quack had actually uprooted so much it would be worth his time to write a real paper and not an esoteric Tweet about it.

[Anonymous No.10470952]

>>10470917
I think he is writing a paper. He has done this previously, tweeting contents of his future paper.

[Anonymous No.10470957]

>>10470911
But it is. Not sure what you're suggesting

[Anonymous No.10470961]

>>10470952
I'm in the middle of reading this, which he cites in the second tweet. https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

I knows its subjective but I can't help thinking this man is biased when he says pedantic things like:

>Mensa members: typically high “IQ” losers in Birkenstocks.

And even includes a picture. He probably made this thread.

But the real issue is that no one knows what he's talking about that also doesn't have more questions. If the typical statistical laymen is just told that the numbers can be massaged to fit a certain view of IQ than how will anyone who didn't get this broken down for them know he isn't doing the same.

[Anonymous No.10470963]

>>10470952
Doesn't mean the paper was/will be sound.

[Anonymous No.10470967]

>>10469688
>Taleb is in no position to call anyone unscientific.
Anybody is in a position to do that as long as they provide credible evidence

>>10470963
That's why you can read it and judge for yourself

[Anonymous No.10470975]

>>10470917
>watching video game streams
Seriously kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10470980]

>>10469684
Did he use only humans for his data ?
Because affirmative action for subhuman americans screw the dataset if not.

[Anonymous No.10470988]

>>10470975
Shut up, nerd.

[Anonymous No.10470991]

>>10470988
At least waste your time on something actively engaging or intelligible.

[Anonymous No.10470995]

>>10470991
Like telling other people not to watch a Twitch stream? Best use of your energy?

[Anonymous No.10471025]

>>10470995
Yes. Denouncing childlike behavior on a science forum. Justifiable use of energy - much better than video game streams.

[Anonymous No.10471029]

>>10471025
You're hopeless and insufferable. Stereotyping is beneath even the lowest academic disciplines: sociology.

[Anonymous No.10471045]

>>10469684
Maybe high IQ people aren't trying to obtain as much money as possible.
There is a noticeable lack of clustering near the bottom for higher IQ individuals so clearly they can afford basic comforts.
If you are comfortable, why over-work yourself for diminishing happiness returns?

Also, net worth is a function of age so it'd be nice to see it broken down by age.
I would Imagine there is a lag for the high IQ people early because of college.

Also notice he cuts off at $230k.
Anybody with a home probably has that much net worth just in the value of the house.
I'd like to see what it's like up to 7 or 8 figures.

[Anonymous No.10471059]

>>10471029
I am denouncing unbefitting behavior, as I just said.
>You're hopeless and insufferable. Stereotyping is beneath even the lowest academic disciplines: sociology.
Ironic. Besides that, your word choice here strongly suggests you’re angry and merely want to insult me rather than communicate any sort of relevant notion.

[Anonymous No.10471070]

>>10471059
> strongly suggests you’re angry and merely want to insult me rather than communicate any sort of relevant notion.

This is coming from the guy that veered off topic to tell someone who posted a screenshot of Twitch chat to stop watching video game streams. Like holy shit I love when retards are literate.

[Anonymous No.10471090]

>>10471070
>off topic
>in a bait thread
>criticizing the image part of a post on an imageboard makes someone both a retard and illiterate
You’re not making much ground in solidifying any argument here. Let me guess, the first thought in your mind after seeing pic related was to condescend me for attaching a football player to my post.

[Anonymous No.10471102]

>>10471059
You’re literally trying to start a fight because someone has a hobby you don’t lmao

[Anonymous No.10471104]

>>10471090
This post is so schizophrenic I'm not even sure what to say. Not only did you get the story wrong but you are criticizing the person who called out someone for doing what you are criticizing. Work on your reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.10471122]

>>10469814
Because IQ scores are designed around that very fact. If a reasonable-sized sample doesn't show a mean of 100, there's trouble - either the test or the sample is shit.

[Anonymous No.10471130]

>>10471104
I was only ridiculing his inclusion of that image. The textual content alone in his first post would have sufficed as a response for >>10470995
>schizophrenic
Not the best word choice.

[Anonymous No.10471133]

>>10471122
That's a bit of a generalization no? IQ scores have been steadily increasing since the test's inception, and the mean has been adjusted to compensate for it. The thing is, even if we didn't change the mean with the rising IQ scores, they would still distribute into a bell curve.

[Anonymous No.10471138]

What does he mean by nonlinearity here?
Why should correlation care about that. Correlation, or dependence, doesn't have to be a linear relationship, for example y=sin(x), here y is clearly dependent on x, they are correlated. Is this retard suggesting that people tested something other than correlation?

[Anonymous No.10471139]

>>10471130
I'm trying hard to put your thoughts together but I am coming to the conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10471152]

>>10471139
I’m too tired to try and reorganize my previous posts into one coherent paragraph. Let’s quit here

[Anonymous No.10471167]

>>10471138
>Correlation, or dependence, doesn't have to be a linear relationship, for example y=sin(x), here y is clearly dependent on x, they are correlated. Is this retard suggesting that people tested something other than correlation?

When people say correlation, they usually mean the Pearson correlation coefficient.

[Anonymous No.10471442]

>>10469691
It would fail every meaningful test for correlation on that dataset.

[Anonymous No.10471458]

>the majority of people are dumber than average

Really makes you think.

[Anonymous No.10471470]

>>10471090
Leave Lio out of this

[Anonymous No.10471479]

>>10469684
Wealth shows poorer correlation, since it depends on preexisting conditions. Income on the other hand is clearly correlated.

[Anonymous No.10471494]

there are probably other factors like ambition, neuroticism, sociopathy. also, clustering or correlation could exist outside of the examined data or in certain well-paid fields which do not show well in the aggregation

[Anonymous No.10471534]

>all those brainlets itt
Nobody in the scientific community ever seriously measures the relationship of two variables using correlations. It is always at most a first (descriptive) step which tells almost nothing anyway.
Two major limitations of Pearson/Spearman correlation coefficients are:
measure linear dependence
univariate
In other words, it ignores non-linear effects and effects of ommited variables that can be endogenous to the relationship.

No surprise things like statistics or psychology are perceived as being unscientific: things like OP are constantly parroted, be it 4chin or wherever.
I'm not interested in psychology as a field but being a mathematician is eye-opening on the bullshittery that permeates popsci. This thread is an excellent example. Another great example is a thread just below about statistics.

[Anonymous No.10471540]

>>10471479
Past 40000 there is no correlation at all. Can't call it clearly correlating when it comes with a huge caviat like this.

[Anonymous No.10471570]

>>10471479
>That 72 IQ guy making $180,000 a year
Found the drug dealer!

[Anonymous No.10471585]

>>10471479
That isn't a clear correlation at all.

[Anonymous No.10471587]

>>10471534
Every scientific field that involves statistical analysis does this.

[Anonymous No.10471599]

>>10471138
it means that the correlation is context dependent. as you move through the distribution of data the correlation of variables changes. hes trying to point out that for higher levels of income, iq no longer correlates . so he says its misleading.

[Anonymous No.10471612]

>>10469684
>expecting /pol/ to understand this when they still have bump-limit benders discussing bayes theorem

[Anonymous No.10471613]

>another IQ thread

[Anonymous No.10471615]

>>10469684

This guy is super retarded.

It's common sense that IQ correlates to income, electrical engineers and so on have high IQ and high income, subsitance farmers have low IQ and low income.

You have to be retarded to deny this basic fact. Even his cherrypicked numbers show a definite low income bulge for low IQ people. No amount of mathematical wizardry can change the facts.

Consider how much of low IQ income is welfare? Disability funding? In an unbiased world, they'd be getting even less.

[Anonymous No.10471619]

>>10471122
Depends whats youre sampling dude. a college sample will have a high mean. some anon around here pointed out that these net worth measures are quite low. desu theres just not enough info from a pic.

[Anonymous No.10471628]

>>10471540
There is a correlation even past $40000. Are you blind?

[Anonymous No.10471640]

t. mad iqlet
reminder to sage all anti-iq threads

[Anonymous No.10471641]

>>10471613
unoriginal cringe frogposter

[Anonymous No.10471658]

>>10471615
IQ doesn't really correlate with income. If you control for the top and bottom group (top group, middle eastern oil states, bottom group, sub-saharan africa), there is no correlation anymore with income. 90 IQ greece is as rich as 105 IQ south korea.

[Anonymous No.10471696]

>>10471138
>y=sin(x), here y is clearly dependent on x, they are correlated
You don't even know what "correlation" is.

[Anonymous No.10471705]

>>10471615
>It's common sense that IQ correlates to income, electrical engineers and so on have high IQ and high income, subsitance farmers have low IQ and low income.

The problem with this logic is that income is entirely based on practicality and economic need.

Yes the electrical engineer has a high IQ and income but so do most engineering professions. Now compare them to professions in pure biology, physics, chemistry and math. Unless those professions are hybrid positions affiliated with engineering or programming they on average get paid poorly despite having similar if not higher IQ.

Also a Subsistence farmer isn't even a traditional job done for income purposes you brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10471737]

>>10469684
Dosen't this greatly depend on where he gets his dataset from?
90-110 IQ tradies will make alot of money. 130IQ people in humanities will earn fuck all.

[Anonymous No.10471744]

>>10471737
Adding the math next to it is just appealing to some rigor that isn't there when since how you collect the data that maters. He knows this and this is why he added some equations next to the picture. Quack.

[Anonymous No.10471747]

>>10471744
Seethe harder

[Anonymous No.10471749]

>>10469684
Who is this guy and why so based?

[Anonymous No.10471890]

I.Q. is on par with the Myers-Briggs personality test which is not to say "bullshit" but it's unscientific because it doesn't define "you as a person" i.e. if I knew you were LNTP or FAGT I still wouldn't be able to predict how you behave.

[Anonymous No.10471902]

>>10471479
There is a clear causative link here, IQ scores are used for college admission

[Anonymous No.10471911]

>>10471890
>because it doesn't "define you as a person"
but it does, at least in the moment of the test. there is no inherent requirement that personality can't change over time.

[Anonymous No.10472002]

>>10470957
>>10470896

yea its defined and is a scalar number, and you eyeball that number and say "yea it looks pretty high". its not much more to it

[Anonymous No.10472010]

>>10469684
argue this with /polacks.
>T.brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10472013]

why does Taleb single out the weak IQ-net worth correlation rather than the much stronger IQ - annual income relationship, or even other things that supposedly strongly correlate with IQ like divorce, out of wedlock birth, violent crime, etc.?

[Anonymous No.10472021]

>>10472013
His second tweet is about income. Open the link in the op.

[Anonymous No.10472029]

>>10472021
>there's no correlation after i eliminate over half of the datapoints

[Anonymous No.10472030]

>>10472021
>above average income there is no correlation
That's not even an argument, I mean that's just ridiculous. dismissing a theory purely because of outliers?

[Anonymous No.10472044]

>>10472030
No, just whenever you say that iq correlates with income you add the caveat "at incomes below 40,000 dollars"

[Anonymous No.10472051]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szXf0VLuQLg

[Anonymous No.10472104]

>>10471658
>90 IQ greece is as rich as 105 IQ south korea.
germany here, where is my money then?

[Anonymous No.10472123]

>>10471599
Yeah well I mean tons of people know that it takes being lucky to be super omega rich no duh. But to be middle-upper to upper class it helps to have a brain on your shoulders. That is not deniable. You can also CHOOSE to not use that brain but if you did the chances are that you will be pretty well off.

See that's the thing when you are smart. You can realize what truly makes you happy and slack off instead of doing your best because you know it isn't necessary, but put a gun to that persons head and they might amaze you.

[Anonymous No.10472140]

>>10472104
That's why Greece is smart.

[Anonymous No.10472336]

>>10471138
>Why should correlation care about that. Correlation, or dependence, doesn't have to be a linear relationship
Yes it does

[Anonymous No.10472394]

>>10471479
what's the r^2 in that?

[Anonymous No.10472413]

>>10472394
Better than most social science findings

[Anonymous No.10472416]

>>10469684

I mean, literally every professor I had as a psych major told me that IQ was not a reliable measure and had various problems, so...

[Anonymous No.10472541]

>>10471479
why does this image keep shrinking? I swear I saw a 1000 pixel width version.

[Anonymous No.10472555]

>>10471615
A subsistance farmer is potentially not being presented with challenges that would be measured by an IQ test unlike higher professions
there's an effect from fdamiliarity with testing conditions here

you ask the subsistance farmer actually important questions like which of your crop or field is doing better? which plants have the worst pest and disease problems after walking them through a field once and you have a fair test of their skills and I'm sure your engineer is going to fail by comparison.
also ask your engineer to work the backbreaking hours to perepare plant and harvest a crop in the face of bad weather and see which one calls it quits first

[Anonymous No.10472557]

>>10469799
IQ isn't actually perfectly symmetrical bell curve.

[Anonymous No.10472566]

>>10472557
aren't there bumps in the IQ curve at low range due to brain injury and another one at a high IQ point that I can't recasll the reason for but it was probably because the test maxed out?

[Anonymous No.10472570]

>>10472541
The image is reverting to the mean.

[Anonymous No.10472573]

I mean, isn't he saying here that low i.q. IS correlated with low net worth?

Also why is he analyzing net worth? We all know it doesn't take a genius to twice lucky, born rich with handlers who don't rob you.

What do the statistics on salary say?

[Anonymous No.10472603]

>>10472416
It's the most single reliable predictor of success across a diverse set of metrics that we have

[Anonymous No.10472629]

>>10469684
that 80 IQ 20k salary, though

[Anonymous No.10472630]

>>10472603
That's like the most aromatic shit in the barn.

[Anonymous No.10472632]

>>10471705

Subsistence farmers have low income. That is an incontrovertible fact, they are the people making around $2 a day in real terms. Interestingly, they're concentrated in the countries with low average IQs.

>>10471658

Wrong.

https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/greece/south-korea

>>10472555

Ah yes, the 'intelligence can be anything I define it to mean' fallacy. It reminds me of the IQ-denialists who maintain that Africans have a very good intelligence... for living in Africa, one of the more racist things I've heard.

How can you possibly say that because an engineer isn't a very good subsistence farmer, both are equally intelligent (or differently intelligent)? You don't need to be intelligent to work out subsistence farming, merely do what your parents did. I recognize that these people develop sophisticated knowledge of food-treatment, developing multi-stage processes to get the cyanide out of various plants. This still isn't intelligence, merely tribal group knowledge.

IQ is culture-blind, pattern recognition of simple shapes. The tests work and they measure abstract thought, which, as the last 5000 years have shown, is pretty damn important.

[Anonymous No.10472634]

>>10469684

>no correlation

Well that's wrong. There very clearly is even form his own self-selected data plot. It just gets weaker past a threshold, it looks like around $50k. And why is that? At that point you have everything you need to be a comfortable person in the 1st world, and to make more you need something more than intelligence to motivate you, ambition and work ethic, which are not necessarily as coupled with intelligence. But you can clearly see there are a fuck-ton of retards making south of $30k which proves the point that the poor are mostly poor because they're stupid. Net worth has a lot of confounding factors.

[Anonymous No.10472668]

>>10472632
No I just meant there's an effect from familiarity with testing procedures which is part of the flynn effect

if you're an illiterate semi-starved 3rd world peasant farmer who grows quite good cabbages you're not going to be very famiiar with standardised testing procedures unlike an alectrical engineer who's spent much of their life immeresd in a culture of standardised tests.

[Anonymous No.10472716]

>>10472394
>>10472413
Classic stats dunning kruegers. No idea what r^2 is but think they can throw the term about.

[Anonymous No.10472718]

>>10472634
Is the correlation meaningful?

[Anonymous No.10472750]

>>10472716
As a man often mystified by statistical dark arts what is r^2?

[Anonymous No.10472753]

>>10469684
It's obvious you won't find a strong correlation as there are many, many factors that influence something like income or wealth. Such variables that are influenced by so many things will never show a strong correlation with anything.

However, if you took two persons who are identical except for IQ, it is kind of obvious the person with the higher IQ will most likely end up being more succesful. Though the gap needs to be really big to have a big influence. If person A has an IQ of 97 and Person B an IQ of 104, you won't see a big difference. But if person A has an IQ of 97 and Person B has an IQ of 150, there will definetely be a big difference.

[Anonymous No.10472758]

>>10472668

What testing procedures are there to follow? It's not in essay format. Colouring in the right M/C answer isn't a very sophisticated skill, nor does it require literacy. I struggle to imagine an example of what you're talking about.

Semi-starved has an effect, true, along with iodine-poverty. Still, we have a solution to the problem! We can take the IQ scores from various ethnic groups in the US, where starvation is hardly an issue and compare to income.

Would you be surprised if Asians and Jews, with high IQs, had high incomes? Well, I wouldn't because I looked at the statistics. Would you be surprised if African-Americans and Hispanics had lower incomes and lower IQ?

There are clear relationships between IQ and income. It should be obvious to everyone.

[Anonymous No.10472764]

>>10472750
You can google the formal definition, but basically an r^2 close to 0 means linear models between the x and y variables are extremely weak, while an r^2 close to 1 means the linear relation is very strong. An r^2 of 0 means any linear model between x and y (of the form y=ax+b) is useless at explaining their relationship, but an r^2 of 1 means there is an exact linear relationship between x and y.

[Anonymous No.10472766]

>>10469684
In all seriousness I think taleb has lost it t-b-h

[Anonymous No.10472840]

>>10472758
I think you have me confused with someone who doesn't believe in genetic influence on IQ
or between IQ and income

jobs tend to select out those who can't do something so if a task is too complex for anyone below a certain IQ you create a reduced pool of people able to compete for income from a given task thus falling back to the laws of supply and demand and increasing what can be charged for this task.

I was just trying to point out potential flaws in familiiarity with being tested might influence results
I imagine a statistically smaller number of subsistance farmers would have the necessary smarts to perform as electrical engineers
but intelligence isn't everything, a dumb subsistance farmer will more likely starve to death without food aid while a dumb electrical engineer will more likely not be able to find paying work

[Anonymous No.10472854]

>>10472750
It measures how much variance the model explains, in other words how much the data points follow the model. It's not in itself that enlightening - adding more variables, even purely random ones, to a model never hurts r^2 and usually increases it - but you can use it to see if an additional measurement/variable is really worth sticking in the model. A lot of people who seem to gosh darn like science get obsessed with it, but it's usually better to consider an adjusted r^2 value that takes into account the dof in a model.

To give a concrete example, in a linear model which is a straight line, if the points are all close to that line then r^2 is high.

>>10472764
Don't speak for me you fucking arrogant retard.

[Anonymous No.10472856]

>>10472840
*missed a point
surviving as a subsistance farmer exerts certain much harsher tolls on the body than life of a potentially office bound electrical engineer
your ability to think and function under high parasite or disease load, sweltering heat, bone chilling cold or famine starved conditions

often IQ tests are performed under at least partially optimised conditions

[Anonymous No.10472862]

>>10472764
>>10472854
thank you anons, this is actually a more comprehendable explanation than I found via googling

[Anonymous No.10472909]

>>10472632

Subsistence farmers by definition do not grow their crops primarily for profit you retard. They do it for survival without any planned regard for future enterprising which is why if they ever decide to use it for profit they do very poorly.

Also that type of farming has existed everywhere regardless of IQ. The reduction of it in first world countries comes about due to increase access of commercial food and urbanization via apartments/ housing complexes.

[Anonymous No.10472976]

>>10469684
PSYCHOLOGY ISN'T A SCIENCE
It beats itself out

[Anonymous No.10472994]

>>10469684
>Theres someone with a ~75 IQ that's worth $130K
Feels bad man

[Anonymous No.10473001]

>>10469684
This guy is an idiot.

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

[Anonymous No.10473022]

>>10472854
Why are you calling me a retard? Is there something wrong with using a less technical explanation for non-specialists?

[Anonymous No.10473058]

>>10469684
>BTFO an entire discipline
14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

[Anonymous No.10474289]

>>10471890
But IQ can predict things. Myers Briggs is shit because its arbitrary as opposed ti say the big 5 which is derived from statistical analyses.

[Anonymous No.10474381]

>>10471890
It depends on the metric your using to determine "predictability". It certainly provides some predictively useful info to know someones MBTI. Perfect predictabiligy? Certainly not, but by that standard pretty much nothing does. More generally, scientific theories dont have to be deterministic. Thats a metaphysical stipulation rhat you seem to have made, but no professionals have or do, to my knowledge.

[Anonymous No.10474738]

>>10472603
>It's the most single reliable predictor
this is a classic fallacy committed by brainlets. it's like a student arguing that his incorrect answer should be accepted because it's the best he could come up with.

[Anonymous No.10474769]

>>10474738
what do you think single most reliable predictor means?

[Anonymous No.10474779]

>>10469684
Taleb was debunked pretty comprehensively : https://youtu.be/u1jsWrQu7CQ

[Anonymous No.10474788]

>>10469684
His own data clearly shows that he's wrong. What is going on with this brainlet tweet?

[Anonymous No.10474836]

>itt : buttburts amerimuts discovering that wealth isn't 100% due to individual merit and talent

Inheritance, networks, capital accumulation... Read Piketty. The self made man is a myth.

[Anonymous No.10474851]

>>10469757
From your use of racial slang it's fairly safe to assume you're from a racial demographic that is basically full of retards by the standard of this test, so I understand your hostility towards it.

[Anonymous No.10474938]

>>10474769
what do you think "reliable" means?

[Anonymous No.10474986]

recent college graduates have relatively high income and low/negative net worth from college loans.

does he consider the massive opportunity cost of going to college?

[Anonymous No.10475034]

>>10474938
IQ is reliable predictor.

[Anonymous No.10475138]

>>10474836

What gets me is it's not like such knowledge is "new" or "lost". It's been clear as day to the majority of societies that wealth requires some component of affluence (be it earned or given) and that component can easily be utilize by later generations. Thus merit and talent couldn't be 100% responsible for wealth. Even the poorest person in America who """"bootstrapped"""" themselves into wealth didn't do it with just his on merit. The fact he was born in a America let alone a first world nation helped out a lot.

A number of americans had to straight up trick themselves into thinking that merit or some abstract psychometric is what controlled for wealth. Even though capitalism clearly shows that the "demand" for a product or service is what dictates wealth accumulation and thus some component of affluence. Not the "merit" behind the product or service itself.

[Anonymous No.10475331]

>>10470967
Taleb literally does not understand that a measure being non-linear does not warrant dismissing the measure. He is a total idiot.

[Anonymous No.10475356]

>>10471628
There is no correlation in data past $40000. You can clearly see in the graph.

[Anonymous No.10475371]

>>10471045
>Also, net worth is a function of age so it'd be nice to see it broken down by age.

This being one, but there are numerous other flaws in a straight up scatter graph plotting 'IQ' and wealth. Nepotism, familial wealth, career - all these things make a significant impact.

Why don't they plot IQ for scientists in one discipline in a specific age bracket against their wealth for instance? Why not control for neighbourhood growing up or whether the person has is part of a family business?

[Anonymous No.10475373]

>>10475356
I can clearly see a correlation past $40000. Just because the slope is low doesn't mean there isn't a correlation.

[Anonymous No.10476284]

>>10471902
IQ scores aren't used for admissions though.

[Anonymous No.10476562]

>>10469684
It literally correlates.
Look at it. Low income also does not correlate with high IQ. Low IQ correlates with low income. But high income does not correlate with high or low IQ
Based off of this you can only predict that LOW IQ individuals are more likely to be poor compared to HIGH IQ

JUST FUCKING LOOK AT IT

[Anonymous No.10476863]

>>10475034
It's not. It's only the "most reliable". Which means nothing.

[Anonymous No.10477113]

>>10469684
so in other words low iq is a predictor for low income but average and high iq is not a predictor for high income.
this guy is massive autist if he fails at communicating his point this poorly

[Anonymous No.10477284]

>>10472002
That "number" is Pearson's correlation coefficient and assumes that the two variables are related linearly. Moreover, you need to make a shitload more assumptions if you want to make any inference from that number, namely, you force a normal distribution onto both variables, which Taleb already has shown is not substantiated by the data as the data has a heavy tail and is asymmetric

[Anonymous No.10477301]

>>10469684
What is inherited wealth?
What is luck?
What is a retarded mathematician?

[Anonymous No.10477381]

>>10476863
youre just being contrarian you minger

[Anonymous No.10477391]

He is bullshit. They've done longitudinal studies following kids with high IQ and they turn out to be extremely successful and powerful. Thr one they did at john hopkins actually has of famous people in the sample.

[Anonymous No.10477415]

>>10472557
IQ is a statistical measurement and is normalized as part of its definition

[Anonymous No.10477420]

>>10475373
What you see may however not be statistically significant anymore

[Anonymous No.10477427]

>>10472123
A true scientist here lads.

[Anonymous No.10477459]

>>10469684
>you can't reduce something as broad as intelligence down to a single number
Yeah no shit, anyone on here that argues that it can be is wrong.

>there is no correlation between IQ and income
Yes there is.

>BTW jordanbpeterson is a quack
Not really, his cites himself and is more right about his facts than any politician in Washington right now.

[Anonymous No.10477573]

>>10477381
only when it comes to incorrect shit.

[Anonymous No.10477957]

>>10470911
>The absolute state of psychologists

[Anonymous No.10479003]

>>10474738
>>this is a classic fallacy committed by brainlets. it's like a student arguing that his incorrect answer should be accepted because it's the best he could come up with.
You can see Taleb shitting on that sort of logic completely on his medium article about the same topic on IQ.

[Anonymous No.10480117]

nice

[Anonymous No.10480583]

>>10479003
Taleb's single best metric for BTFOing IQ is... muh shekels.

How is he not making exactly the same fallacy?

>Taleb
>Not a Shekelophaster

[Anonymous No.10480607]

>>10474788
In other words, the Net Worth graph shows that higher IQ individuals are working as slaves for lower IQ individuals who inherited their wealth.

[Anonymous No.10480754]

>>10469684
Except the goal of IQ is to predict academic performance, not income/wealth. It does amazingly well at that.

[Anonymous No.10480764]

>>10480583
IQ real world correlation fail at all level, music,research,bussiness,literature,maths,physic

[Anonymous No.10480765]

>>10480764
Wrong

[Anonymous No.10480818]

>>10472104
Your country shouldn't even exist in the first place.