The entire purpose of IQ is to find someone's intelligence value mostly independent from environmental circumstances. The tests are literally designed with that purpose in mind and are adjusted to make sure they don't punish people for things like literacy or simply not knowing formula, at least in theory they should be.
But this always fails because the mean of 100 is actually not a consistent amount, and social factors (like upbringing) will still have a major impact on cognitive development. Your IQ raises rapidly as you grow, stabilizes into a slow growth, plateaus, and begins a gradual decline after 40, never to rise again.
No one is born a genius in a hut because they are babies, and babies have IQ's below that of most dogs. This is why a excessively young population will have lower IQ's on average. If that kid starves, or is exposed to violence, you can expect even someone who is pre-disposed to a genius level IQ to never get there. Their development is arrested. If the women in your society aren't sex selecting for IQ, you're not going to see upward IQ development because it isn't seen as a breeding advantage. If you have a society that doesn't disincentivize incest, you can see IQ's crater as well.
The environmental circumstances are inseparable from the biological one, because sometimes the environmental circumstances are causing the biological one. And that's actually much more of a reason why focusing on the IQ tests is far more scary to the Left. We know that Leftism causes IQ collapse. Again, normally through starvation from bad food policies, violence from social collapse, deaths of the elderly (either through purges or through lack of medical care, making the population more disproportionately young), and more recently: allowance for inbreeding and importation of low IQ immigrant populations.
If you narrowed IQ differences down, the terrifying fact isn't that there's going to be race differences, but political ones. And, the longer the area is Left-wing, the more destructive to IQ of that area it's going to become. Worse, there's no way to increase it without multiple generations of anti-Leftist policies. If you want to increase IQ rates at all, you have to hunt down and destroy Leftism everywhere that it sits.
It’s so on brand that you are denying racial IQ differences. As if race and ethnicity aren’t obviously expressions of genetics, which are themselves an expression of evolution via selective pressures including intelligence.
You're literally making stuff up. I never said that there were differences. I said that there were differences, and that there have to be differences, particularly based on propensity of youth. I even mentioned what the selective pressures were. Some of them are, in fact, environmental.
But this always fails because the mean of 100 is actually not a consistent amount
Its not consistent because we rarely re-adjust it anymore due to becoming a "fully globalized" world instead of a lot of independent countries who can have their own mean and bell curve. Especially due to the politics of the "global 100" putting half the planet as sub 70 retards.
Your IQ raises rapidly as you grow, stabilizes into a slow growth, plateaus, and begins a gradual decline after 40, never to rise again.
Your IQ is a capability. Its there with you from the moment you are born and we literally select for age because the guys who made it weren't so retarded they thought a 150 IQ 4 year old could do the same feats as a 150 IQ 50 year old.
If someone is unable to demonstrate their full IQ, that is a problem that the creators of each individual test should be accounting for to draw it out. They fail at it, often because of the politics of the entire idea of having to make a Pidgin test makes whitey uncomfortable talking to African tribesmen.
The entire reason its an IQ test and not a generalized test like from school is because its meant to have controlled for those environmental factors post-birth, and find the genetic brain capabilities.
Your IQ is a capability. Its there with you from the moment you are born and we literally select for age because the guys who made it weren't so retarded they thought a 150 IQ 4 year old could do the same feats as a 150 IQ 50 year old.
Your intelligence capacity is that, but I've seen nothing to show that IQ demonstrates what your achieved intellectual capacity will end up actually being. Just where you are from a relative position. It really seems like it makes more sense to use it as a way of seeing on whether or not your cognitive abilities are developing as expected by testing every year.
And some of the early tests sound like they were made by retards if "genetic intelligence" is what they were going for. Asking questions about the names of baseball teams in early tests is pretty dumb. Especially when you hand the tests to people who can't read, or don't speak English (especially if all the questions are in English).
Even with genetic brain capabilities in mind, the IQ test can't eliminate environmental factors, because the subject is living in an environment. Starvation and head trauma will inevitably change the outcome even if we assume the early tests to be accurate.
And to go back to my original point, I think that the difference is whether we are testing by group, by age, or by group and age. My example is by group exclusively, not by age cohort.
And some of the early tests sound like they were made by retards if "genetic intelligence" is what they were going for.
Well a lot of the early tests were also being used as eugenical barometers and developed with very ulterior motives in mind.
Psychology as a field has a stark difference between "trying to properly understand the brain" and "learning to manipulate the brain to our ends" and its been that way from basically the outset. And category 2 there is often far more numerous, funded, and powerful so it drowns out the rest.
Starvation and head trauma will inevitably change the outcome even if we assume the early tests to be accurate.
Well of course literal brain rotting actions will diminish the brain's ability. But I don't think the equivalent to losing your fingers means your arm muscles are also now less capable, only that you can no longer manage to reach that capacity yourself. Its a pedantic difference in how it manifests in reality, but the difference is huge in the scientific details.
I think that the difference is whether we are testing by group, by age, or by group and age
Of course it will be, the problem is we as a people can no longer properly define a "group" for the purpose of these tests beyond "the entire world" which leaves a lot of improper testing and poor control being thrown into the pot while calculating the "Average."
So in the end, the IQ scale will be useless beyond a very generalized picture until we can sort that out. And I doubt we ever will.
But I don't think the equivalent to losing your fingers means your arm muscles are also now less capable, only that you can no longer manage to reach that capacity yourself. Its a pedantic difference in how it manifests in reality, but the difference is huge in the scientific details.
Yeah, I'm focusing that because, using your analogy, IQ is like measuring your grip strength. Yes, grip strength at relative age will be determined by genetics in a large part, but there will be an environmental impacts that can effect grip strength. Sure, we can infer that there will be a trend that stronger gripped children may be pre-disposed to being stronger gripped adults, but this isn't a certainty because of environmental factors.
But this always fails because the mean of 100 is actually not a consistent amount, and social factors (like upbringing) will still have a major impact on cognitive development. Your IQ raises rapidly as you grow, stabilizes into a slow growth, plateaus, and begins a gradual decline after 40, never to rise again.
No one is born a genius in a hut because they are babies, and babies have IQ's below that of most dogs. This is why a excessively young population will have lower IQ's on average. If that kid starves, or is exposed to violence, you can expect even someone who is pre-disposed to a genius level IQ to never get there. Their development is arrested. If the women in your society aren't sex selecting for IQ, you're not going to see upward IQ development because it isn't seen as a breeding advantage. If you have a society that doesn't disincentivize incest, you can see IQ's crater as well.
The environmental circumstances are inseparable from the biological one, because sometimes the environmental circumstances are causing the biological one. And that's actually much more of a reason why focusing on the IQ tests is far more scary to the Left. We know that Leftism causes IQ collapse. Again, normally through starvation from bad food policies, violence from social collapse, deaths of the elderly (either through purges or through lack of medical care, making the population more disproportionately young), and more recently: allowance for inbreeding and importation of low IQ immigrant populations.
If you narrowed IQ differences down, the terrifying fact isn't that there's going to be race differences, but political ones. And, the longer the area is Left-wing, the more destructive to IQ of that area it's going to become. Worse, there's no way to increase it without multiple generations of anti-Leftist policies. If you want to increase IQ rates at all, you have to hunt down and destroy Leftism everywhere that it sits.
It’s so on brand that you are denying racial IQ differences. As if race and ethnicity aren’t obviously expressions of genetics, which are themselves an expression of evolution via selective pressures including intelligence.
with a name like that he's jewish
You're literally making stuff up. I never said that there were differences. I said that there were differences, and that there have to be differences, particularly based on propensity of youth. I even mentioned what the selective pressures were. Some of them are, in fact, environmental.
Its not consistent because we rarely re-adjust it anymore due to becoming a "fully globalized" world instead of a lot of independent countries who can have their own mean and bell curve. Especially due to the politics of the "global 100" putting half the planet as sub 70 retards.
Your IQ is a capability. Its there with you from the moment you are born and we literally select for age because the guys who made it weren't so retarded they thought a 150 IQ 4 year old could do the same feats as a 150 IQ 50 year old.
If someone is unable to demonstrate their full IQ, that is a problem that the creators of each individual test should be accounting for to draw it out. They fail at it, often because of the politics of the entire idea of having to make a Pidgin test makes whitey uncomfortable talking to African tribesmen.
The entire reason its an IQ test and not a generalized test like from school is because its meant to have controlled for those environmental factors post-birth, and find the genetic brain capabilities.
Your intelligence capacity is that, but I've seen nothing to show that IQ demonstrates what your achieved intellectual capacity will end up actually being. Just where you are from a relative position. It really seems like it makes more sense to use it as a way of seeing on whether or not your cognitive abilities are developing as expected by testing every year.
And some of the early tests sound like they were made by retards if "genetic intelligence" is what they were going for. Asking questions about the names of baseball teams in early tests is pretty dumb. Especially when you hand the tests to people who can't read, or don't speak English (especially if all the questions are in English).
Even with genetic brain capabilities in mind, the IQ test can't eliminate environmental factors, because the subject is living in an environment. Starvation and head trauma will inevitably change the outcome even if we assume the early tests to be accurate.
And to go back to my original point, I think that the difference is whether we are testing by group, by age, or by group and age. My example is by group exclusively, not by age cohort.
Well a lot of the early tests were also being used as eugenical barometers and developed with very ulterior motives in mind.
Psychology as a field has a stark difference between "trying to properly understand the brain" and "learning to manipulate the brain to our ends" and its been that way from basically the outset. And category 2 there is often far more numerous, funded, and powerful so it drowns out the rest.
Well of course literal brain rotting actions will diminish the brain's ability. But I don't think the equivalent to losing your fingers means your arm muscles are also now less capable, only that you can no longer manage to reach that capacity yourself. Its a pedantic difference in how it manifests in reality, but the difference is huge in the scientific details.
Of course it will be, the problem is we as a people can no longer properly define a "group" for the purpose of these tests beyond "the entire world" which leaves a lot of improper testing and poor control being thrown into the pot while calculating the "Average."
So in the end, the IQ scale will be useless beyond a very generalized picture until we can sort that out. And I doubt we ever will.
Yeah, I'm focusing that because, using your analogy, IQ is like measuring your grip strength. Yes, grip strength at relative age will be determined by genetics in a large part, but there will be an environmental impacts that can effect grip strength. Sure, we can infer that there will be a trend that stronger gripped children may be pre-disposed to being stronger gripped adults, but this isn't a certainty because of environmental factors.
100 is arbitrary. It's just what the middle of corrected test score based a sufficiently large sample is supposed to be.
After double-checking, it's not arbitrary, it's relative.
It is a relative score on an arbitrary scale.