If you're concerned about IQ, understand it before screaming about it.
Projection, thy name is Gizortnik.
IQ is measured comparing an individual against his cohort. A 4 year old is not compared to a 20 year old, he is compared to all the other 4 year olds. So yes, the average white baby has an IQ of 100.
Also, that would make the whole measurement effort completely nonsensical. With a moving average that moves over time because it's a relative measurement, it would also be relative in all cohorts. By the point I just made about a younger population, you could never claim that blacks were 1 SD less in intelligence than whites because if that population was younger, then _each age group in that population would also be 100, in comparison to white adults.
You can not selectively exclude different categories like that, because the results don't mean anything. Maybe black accountants have 100 IQ among accountants, because we're comparing by profession instead of race or age. But white babies also have 100 IQ compared to white black babies. But then, Asian women have an IQ of 100, but only in Canada. So who's 100 means that they are smarter, the black accountant, the white baby, the Asian woman in Canada? No one knows because the score doesn't mean anything when you have no consistent measurement.
You're actually trying to prove that IQ has no basis in science, let alone biology.
Like I said, you can't claim that a white baby that literally doesn't understand where you go when you leave the room is of higher intelligence than Thomas Sowell. There's too many ways to divide those cohorts up. By age, race, profession, height, sex, etc.
You completely fucked this. Baby's do not have 100 point IQ's. Any baby. Ever.
Like I said, you can't claim that a white baby that literally doesn't understand where you go when you leave the room is of higher intelligence than Thomas Sowell.
This sentence right here shows that you have no clue what IQ is. What is the point of a measurement that just duplicates the SAT? The whole idea of IQ is to predict how smart someone will be by a test administered as young as possible. It exists to correctly allocate educational resources, instead of wasting money trying to teach niggers.
When I looked in your link and found basically nothing about what you were talking about. You also didn't highlight a sentence, so it makes me question whether or not you just wanted to get me to waste time because you hadn't looked anything up.
Also, your comment about the SAT's doesn't really mean anything either as that's not really an effective scientific measurement of intelligence. I'm not really convinced you know what you're talking about.
I remember seeing an average IQ score chart that changed with age, but I couldn't find from where. So I started looking up source material to see what I could find. As best as I can find at the moment, I have seen some statements about 5 year olds scoring higher than 16 year olds, which suggests that there is, at least, an age cohort comparison. So, I'll accept that perhaps a baby can get a 100 on an IQ test. So long as the test where the IQ test is only testing babies.
However, this still doesn't the idea that younger populations can effect the IQ tests. Again, if we set the cohort to race and not by age, significantly younger populations will have lower average IQ's because they will still be compared to the average IQ individual of all of the races. Again, children do not have the same IQ capacity as adults, this is not a debatable point. To get the results you are talking about, you would have to have cohorts by race and age. However, I never really hear you, or anyone else, argue this. It doesn't make sense to claim that a white baby has an IQ of 100 and a black man has an IQ of 98, therefore the baby is smarter; it objectively isn't because, again, it doesn't have Object Permanence. Compared to all people within a demographic, of any age, the children will always have some of the lowest average IQ, by definition.
I think this is might be why you brought up the SAT's because you think that IQ is predictive. That does not seem to be the case either. From what I've seen in the literature so far, it's not clear that higher IQ children (among their age group) grow up into higher IQ adults (among their new age group), and that multiple studies looking into race & IQ noted that the average IQ of black children reduced with age, and were attempting to find the source of that.
The point of IQ tests is about understanding the ability of the ability of the mind to process difficult and abstract cognitive tasks. It seems fairly obvious that using IQ tests for prediction of later age IQ is a problem since the brains of children are clearly not finished developing, so the tests actually can't be the same kind of tests that adults can take. The children will obviously fail at more difficult questions / tasks (again, children who don't have Theory Of Mind can't abstract to any significant degree). If these children are starved or concussed before they reach adulthood, what they could have achieved in IQ may be lost. It's not possible to control for those variables, so any sort of developmental changes will alter it's predictive quality.
The point for an IQ test is not to administer it as early as possible, but to keep doing it to keep track of how the subject is developing mentally.
And again, most of the research rejects your claim about 'wasting money teaching niggers'. It in fact explicitly states that the ability to learn and IQ are different issues, and that even low IQ individuals have the ability to learn, thus different teaching methods between lower & higher IQ individuals would be successful.
I guess to sum it up: you're conflating IQ by race and IQ by age, intentionally.
That's an abject lie. Babies do not have a 100 point IQ.
How can children have average IQ of 100 when they don't have Theory Of Mind until 5, and Object Permanence until 3?
I never said jews are superior weirdo. Again, IQ is not a moral measurement.
If you're concerned about IQ, understand it before screaming about it.
Projection, thy name is Gizortnik.
IQ is measured comparing an individual against his cohort. A 4 year old is not compared to a 20 year old, he is compared to all the other 4 year olds. So yes, the average white baby has an IQ of 100.
No.
Also, that would make the whole measurement effort completely nonsensical. With a moving average that moves over time because it's a relative measurement, it would also be relative in all cohorts. By the point I just made about a younger population, you could never claim that blacks were 1 SD less in intelligence than whites because if that population was younger, then _each age group in that population would also be 100, in comparison to white adults.
You can not selectively exclude different categories like that, because the results don't mean anything. Maybe black accountants have 100 IQ among accountants, because we're comparing by profession instead of race or age. But white babies also have 100 IQ compared to white black babies. But then, Asian women have an IQ of 100, but only in Canada. So who's 100 means that they are smarter, the black accountant, the white baby, the Asian woman in Canada? No one knows because the score doesn't mean anything when you have no consistent measurement.
You're actually trying to prove that IQ has no basis in science, let alone biology.
Like I said, you can't claim that a white baby that literally doesn't understand where you go when you leave the room is of higher intelligence than Thomas Sowell. There's too many ways to divide those cohorts up. By age, race, profession, height, sex, etc.
You completely fucked this. Baby's do not have 100 point IQ's. Any baby. Ever.
This sentence right here shows that you have no clue what IQ is. What is the point of a measurement that just duplicates the SAT? The whole idea of IQ is to predict how smart someone will be by a test administered as young as possible. It exists to correctly allocate educational resources, instead of wasting money trying to teach niggers.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289606000791
Luckily for you I'm not dishonest.
When I looked in your link and found basically nothing about what you were talking about. You also didn't highlight a sentence, so it makes me question whether or not you just wanted to get me to waste time because you hadn't looked anything up.
Also, your comment about the SAT's doesn't really mean anything either as that's not really an effective scientific measurement of intelligence. I'm not really convinced you know what you're talking about.
I remember seeing an average IQ score chart that changed with age, but I couldn't find from where. So I started looking up source material to see what I could find. As best as I can find at the moment, I have seen some statements about 5 year olds scoring higher than 16 year olds, which suggests that there is, at least, an age cohort comparison. So, I'll accept that perhaps a baby can get a 100 on an IQ test. So long as the test where the IQ test is only testing babies.
However, this still doesn't the idea that younger populations can effect the IQ tests. Again, if we set the cohort to race and not by age, significantly younger populations will have lower average IQ's because they will still be compared to the average IQ individual of all of the races. Again, children do not have the same IQ capacity as adults, this is not a debatable point. To get the results you are talking about, you would have to have cohorts by race and age. However, I never really hear you, or anyone else, argue this. It doesn't make sense to claim that a white baby has an IQ of 100 and a black man has an IQ of 98, therefore the baby is smarter; it objectively isn't because, again, it doesn't have Object Permanence. Compared to all people within a demographic, of any age, the children will always have some of the lowest average IQ, by definition.
I think this is might be why you brought up the SAT's because you think that IQ is predictive. That does not seem to be the case either. From what I've seen in the literature so far, it's not clear that higher IQ children (among their age group) grow up into higher IQ adults (among their new age group), and that multiple studies looking into race & IQ noted that the average IQ of black children reduced with age, and were attempting to find the source of that.
The point of IQ tests is about understanding the ability of the ability of the mind to process difficult and abstract cognitive tasks. It seems fairly obvious that using IQ tests for prediction of later age IQ is a problem since the brains of children are clearly not finished developing, so the tests actually can't be the same kind of tests that adults can take. The children will obviously fail at more difficult questions / tasks (again, children who don't have Theory Of Mind can't abstract to any significant degree). If these children are starved or concussed before they reach adulthood, what they could have achieved in IQ may be lost. It's not possible to control for those variables, so any sort of developmental changes will alter it's predictive quality.
The point for an IQ test is not to administer it as early as possible, but to keep doing it to keep track of how the subject is developing mentally.
And again, most of the research rejects your claim about 'wasting money teaching niggers'. It in fact explicitly states that the ability to learn and IQ are different issues, and that even low IQ individuals have the ability to learn, thus different teaching methods between lower & higher IQ individuals would be successful.
I guess to sum it up: you're conflating IQ by race and IQ by age, intentionally.