This is an article a lot of people in the HBD sphere need to see. Too many of them assume that somehow IQ = correctness (correctness often just translates to who you agree with). IQ is more a measure of processing power than anything else, and the great irony is that no group has more disagreements amongst themselves than the high IQ. This makes sense since the ability to process information rapidly allows one to open up new abstract/mental areas to explore which will vary greatly from other high IQ individuals whereas the low IQ tend to be stuck in the same uniform domains due to an inability to grow outwards upon a foundation of beliefs/knowledge. A good metaphor is that intelligence is like a tree whose length of branches represent cognitive abilities. Those with lesser abilities are stuck in a smaller area which is closer to the base (trunk) of human thinking, whereas those with higher abilities cover a greater area with much distance between them.
To arrive at truth, humanity needs large networks of high IQ people interacting with one another. During the time of the evaluation of some novel scientific question, most of them are inevitably going to be wrong to some degree. It's only through cooperation that any truth can be arrived at and conserved. A higher average IQ among the general population is also necessary because higher IQ can allow for higher functionality generally, and higher functionality will continue to be a great necessity as societies become more and more complex.
I read a lot about IQ being "more a measure of processing power than anything else" lately and don't know where it comes from. (Maybe computer scientists becoming interested in human intelligence?) Information processing tests *are* valuable for measuring mental ability in a way that is largely uncontaminated by Flynn Effects, but it isn't really true that intelligence is, or is primarily, a measure of processing power - particularly insofar as it leads to metaphors like intelligence being a tree with branches that grow further apart; mental abilities remain highly correlated even at high levels of g, and IQ appears to form three clusters (verbal, perceptual, rotation) which don't exactly have processing at their root:
Well done! I'd been considering an article like this for some time, and this analysis saved me a lot of trouble. Scott has a strong verbal tilt, which makes him good at philosophy (well... for a puny human, anyway), and he has a special interest in social dynamics that allowed him to dominate his particular niche.
But there's just no way anyone who struggles with Calculus I is three standard deviations above the mean, and I have no idea why anyone thinks he's that smart. (No wait I do: the ones who think this are his fans, and the most important characteristic of fans is that they be emotional, not that they be objective.)
Calling it now: Verbal tilt theory has something to do with both the MENSA paradox, IQ fetishism, and IQ denialism. Also likely explains why midwittery only target certain sub-demographics of ~120 humanities degree holders vs ~110 STEM enthusiasts.
This is an article a lot of people in the HBD sphere need to see. Too many of them assume that somehow IQ = correctness (correctness often just translates to who you agree with). IQ is more a measure of processing power than anything else, and the great irony is that no group has more disagreements amongst themselves than the high IQ. This makes sense since the ability to process information rapidly allows one to open up new abstract/mental areas to explore which will vary greatly from other high IQ individuals whereas the low IQ tend to be stuck in the same uniform domains due to an inability to grow outwards upon a foundation of beliefs/knowledge. A good metaphor is that intelligence is like a tree whose length of branches represent cognitive abilities. Those with lesser abilities are stuck in a smaller area which is closer to the base (trunk) of human thinking, whereas those with higher abilities cover a greater area with much distance between them.
To arrive at truth, humanity needs large networks of high IQ people interacting with one another. During the time of the evaluation of some novel scientific question, most of them are inevitably going to be wrong to some degree. It's only through cooperation that any truth can be arrived at and conserved. A higher average IQ among the general population is also necessary because higher IQ can allow for higher functionality generally, and higher functionality will continue to be a great necessity as societies become more and more complex.
I read a lot about IQ being "more a measure of processing power than anything else" lately and don't know where it comes from. (Maybe computer scientists becoming interested in human intelligence?) Information processing tests *are* valuable for measuring mental ability in a way that is largely uncontaminated by Flynn Effects, but it isn't really true that intelligence is, or is primarily, a measure of processing power - particularly insofar as it leads to metaphors like intelligence being a tree with branches that grow further apart; mental abilities remain highly correlated even at high levels of g, and IQ appears to form three clusters (verbal, perceptual, rotation) which don't exactly have processing at their root:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Bouchard-Jr/publication/222813540_The_structure_of_human_intelligence_It_is_verbal_perceptual_and_image_rotation_VPR_not_fluid_and_crystallized/links/5ba2c1fea6fdccd3cb649585/The-structure-of-human-intelligence-It-is-verbal-perceptual-and-image-rotation-VPR-not-fluid-and-crystallized.pdf
Research request: what is the estimator formula between the 30 BFI facets and fluid IQ? The MMPI might have too many questions and needs a trim. https://archive.fo/folec https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/new-paper-out-intelligence-and-general-psychopathology-in-the-vietnam-experience-study-a-closer-look
Well done! I'd been considering an article like this for some time, and this analysis saved me a lot of trouble. Scott has a strong verbal tilt, which makes him good at philosophy (well... for a puny human, anyway), and he has a special interest in social dynamics that allowed him to dominate his particular niche.
But there's just no way anyone who struggles with Calculus I is three standard deviations above the mean, and I have no idea why anyone thinks he's that smart. (No wait I do: the ones who think this are his fans, and the most important characteristic of fans is that they be emotional, not that they be objective.)
Calling it now: Verbal tilt theory has something to do with both the MENSA paradox, IQ fetishism, and IQ denialism. Also likely explains why midwittery only target certain sub-demographics of ~120 humanities degree holders vs ~110 STEM enthusiasts.
>rarely culturally unbiased
typo?
verbal/general knowledge tests can be culturally biased against immigrants, though the scores are still vaguely meaningful.
edit: nvm yes it was a typo lol