That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test.
@@angelDanJonathan That raises serious questions on the direction of the new educational efforts for students and parents. The school someone comes will probably weight much more in terms of admission criteria than level of achievement. Since most students will have high grades, but ingrained admissions to elite institutions will come from schools affiliated with the upper classes. Therefore, the fall of testing or its correlation with ability is actually consolidating the aristocracy of the 60s meritocrats. Basically meritocracy declines while aristocracy strengthens its grip on opportunities.
2011: "If 10 years from now we all meet again in this room there is a very good chance that some of the key questions that are going to come up in our discussion today we'll know the answers to. And it's really purely driven by technology and economics." 2021: Driven by politics, the meeting is cancelled and the group is underground, like early Christians.
After watching this video, I get the feeling that in 70 years people will be reading our comments here and only seeing: "Derpa der, derpa dur duh? Brondo! Electrolytes!"
I feel the same bro, 6 years later and there is all thoses ideologics groups destroying all the research and the strategy we had to save the western world from stupidity, i guess we lost that fight, we are not enought to balance it and to make the global change happening, people are just crying when you even tell the word eugenic, even if its positive word, they just think about Nazism (even if there is no relationship), and they refuse it, even in my country, all the law for saving the country by growing the average IQ with genetics tools have been wiped out because they said "no we prefer having Down's syndrome children, it is discrimination against the disabled", a girl said "i have 3 disabled children on 9 so we need to make a disabled society because they exist and are part of it", i was like omg she is retarded, but she is rich and high power, sadly she destroyed the law, now the law is dead and they want "more disabled people inside the society, they even made laws to protect and help them to reproduce, its a total nigthmare, idiocracy will become a reality i guess...
It will never happen, because in today's world we are all "equal" and if someone stands out for his genius it is not because of his genetics but because of mere "socioeconomic factors", period. oh and if you say something different you are a bigot.
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
Well not really, I don't see how they are trying to "dumb down the population" they are just providing facts, based on research. In countries such as China or India students who are unable to learn like all the other children are sometimes greatly discriminated against, teachers think these students are lazy. With this research I believe people may be able to understand intellect better and understand that IQ is just a result of a our genetics.
He's been hamstrung and can't really talk about it. This research is considered racist by some, even though he never mentions race. He was targeted by the #ShutDownSTEM movement.
Many emotional and preconceived notions as one would expect in a topic like this; however I adjure viewers to watch this with an open mind,noting that Steve is less interested in promoting a particular view than he is in providing a landscape of the current state of research on the topic--which suggests good reason to support many of the mainstream claims of current IQ research. BTW, I was eligible to take part in this study based on the their requirements. but too apathetic to take part.
@lennyhome Those are the questions they wanted to answer, and their goals. And you might be right that their goals were moral. However, their means were deficient. Their experiments were often immoral; they also decided who was "inferior" based on personal opinion. Here, we have scientists whose experiments are not painful or subjective. They want to find out what causes intelligence, and genetics clearly plays a part in the brain's development.
The results will be very painful. At the end of the talk he refers to eugenics, people chosing smart kids and aborting others. We are already doing that with the trisomy tests. Arguably immoral but inevitable.
I have an IQ of 85 but I have a fascination, with genetics and intelligence. I really don't see a problem with any of this research. In fact many people are starting to open their eyes to what intelligence really is with all this research. Now people could understand that people of all intelligence levels are equal, and our intelligence is primary a result of our genetics. Before people were ignorant of this fact and would discriminate against mentally handicap people, and kids unable to learn
You are just acting the part, to sell people on the story that you have been enlightened of your stupidity, per 85 IQ. IQ is junk science, and not a reliable measure of intelligence.
That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore.
Focusing on genetics is quite shortsighted for several reasons: *high IQ is often related to a higher incidence of mental illness or (ironically) learning/cognitive disabilities (asperger's). *if you start "breeding" people to gain IQ points, you potentially set your self up for affecting other areas linked to same gene. God built in genetic variability for a reason; its the best system out there...
ive recently discovered that im dumb. I can`t even write a proper sentence, and that just illustrates my low/mediocre iq. My intrests are in high iq fields. ill never be able to achive anything, that my inability to become anything intresting was set before my first cell division makes my life a curel slow plunge into emberrasment and i dont want to take part in it.
Don't worry, scientists will help you. If we find the genes of inteligence and understand them, then we can modify them. So it is ok, that is the problem, that people think things are aleyas the same. No it is not. The future industries will be governed by intelligent beinga, and so the human capital has to be highly intelligent in order to increase productivity.
It's just showing that low level operations can and do have high level impact. Think of the DNA code as an assembly code which is direct instructions to the processor and memory. It does only encode certain protein in certain places, but that's how it build you as an organism. The research presented here is not pseudoscience - it shows correlation between genes and cognitive abilities. The height heredity comparison the lecturer uses is a really good example. It's the exact same research.
What I have learned through all the sites and articles, books and forums. Is that this is a so political inflammed subject to talk about, cause people that scores in the 96% tend to be afraid of an elitist society, or feels inferior. This is especially true in my country where we have and unspeaken social code called "jante law"
That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore.
Jesus H mother loving Christ! It’s as if a group of people started crying that the sky is not blue so now we have to make the most sophisticated machines known to man and employ the most eloquent speakers to convey the finding that the sky is indeed blue. There is such a thing as intelligence, it’s not equally distributed and if there’s one way we get more or less of it I’d bet on genes über alles. This is such a frustrating time to live through. Instead of leaving the granted as granted and taking it for granted as we progress forward we’re stuck having to prove something that was taken for granted by our great great great great great great great grandfathers because some people FEEL that the truth and reality isn’t FAIR.
If brain can be linked to abstract thought and DNA can be linked to brain, then DNA can be linked to abstract thought, by Transitivity. So, your claim entails either that brain cannot be linked to abstract thought or that DNA cannot be linked to brain, both of which are patently false..
@chocobofarmer2021 See Henry Harpending's research on this. Furthermore, is it true that races only differ in a few appearance related genes? Nope. We already have this data and it's not true by a long shot. >In a study of East Asians, Europeans and Africans, Dr. Pritchard and his colleagues found 700 regions of the genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection in recent times. In East Asians, the average date of these selection events is 6,600 years ago.
Intelligence can not be compared to height. The amount of genes that code for intelligence are far too many compared to the few genes that code for height
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
Proof? Remember that some animals, even bacteria, have more chromosomes then humans, but that doesn't make bacteria have a more complex system then the human body.
The greatest gains in benefit would be derived from figuring out environmental factors which would lead to increases in large populations. On average, there has been a 10 point increase in IQ scores per decade. What factors are related to physical factors (improved nutrition, reduced exposure to known toxins like lead, etc), how many to improved psychosocial factors (increased stimulation through school, reduced childhood stress, etc).
@@peterfireflylund actually, what he is referring to the Flynn affect. When Socioeconomics factors improve intelligence/IQ test scores increase. As a matter of fact each year we have to increase the IQ test difficulty. So the average stays at a hundred
@@Sheltered I know about the Flynn “affect”, thank you very much. That is *precisely* why I had to comment on the ludicrous figure of 10 points per decade. If *you* took the time to learn more about it, you wouldn’t ascribe it to “Socioeconomics factors” in the usual sense, but to better nutrition and fewer childhood diseases. Once the nutrition is good enough and enough childhood diseases are avoided, there is nothing more to be gained by improved “Socioeconomics factors”. Btw, there is a funny thing… the IQ gain measured depends on the IQ test used, with Raven’s progressive matrices showing a much larger gain than any of the other tests. There is every reason to believe the gains measured by that test are largely “hollow”, that is, they don’t represent a real gain in the underlying intelligence. …But you already knew that, didn’t you?
@@peterfireflylund those are... socioeconomic factors and I assume the results are collected from a wide array of test not just one kind. Either way in most recent times it seems like results are tapering off so guess you would have to explain how they can’t go up and why they are staying the same at this new “peak”
I had to catch myself when he said " _We're almost at the stage where we can analyse_ [GWAS data] " - all I could think was "Dude, have you been asleep? TensorFlow that shit, bro!". Then I noticed... *2011* - Machine Learning was barely a thing. (I did the Stanford Machine Learning course in 2014; by 2017 doing Deep Learning projects was trivial thanks to TensorFlow)
I have a genuine question about my own history. SAT only 1220, 4.0 GPA at UO and recently (8 yrs after graduation) 327 GRE. So what might explain the inconsistency? And also if being a Chinese student (non-native English speaker) explains part of it, meaning my English sucked in the beginning thus my unsatisfactory SAT score and now it's better thus my quite decent GRE score, then what insurmountable hurdle could prevent a US-native from improving their verbal and quantitative performance? Does that then invalidate the claim that GRE=SAT=IQ?
You just improved your language to the point that you can understand the questions and answer properly... Doesnt mean your g increased. Once you know the language you reasoning ability in that language doesnt improve. Like if you are tired, sleeping will improve your test scores. Sleeping some more after that wont increase the scores further. Otherwise I would be Einstein.
Most foreign students because they stay as students for sometimes improvement their focus and concentration and test taking skills. The IQ according to this talk is predictable even by the first few exams you did when you were in elementary school. If you did well in those days , you did as well at 15 years old and you did as good at 25 years old. It should be consistent
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
@IceFritzLanger they are studying one phenotype: raw "intelligence." There are of course other factors to how someone functions such as their motivation and social interaction as he mentioned (I guess you weren't paying attention?) "quality of life" is very hard to quantify.
Could someone please tell me if I can get a perfect SAT score (1400+) with a 115 iq score, and a lot of practice? Does this correlation between the SAT and iq test would not let me to score that high?
anyone can get a perfect sat score. if ur goal is perfection focus on math first if you have a full understanding of the math concepts and are able to complete at least 4 perfect scores on practice tests you shouldn’t get any wrong on ur actual test. knowing reading concepts and questions styles are part of preparing for the reading section but a lot of it is building ur ability to recognize what you are reading and retain what you are reading if you are able to retain main ideas from texts it’ll make eliminating wrong answer choices 100 times easier. for writing it’s mostly recognizing concepts and being able to maintain pace through the questions taking practice tests helps so much with the writing score.
In short yes. 115 IQ is easily enough to get a 1600 on the SAT. If people with 89 IQ can get a 1600 on the SAT then someone with 115 can figure it out as well. Just to put in into perspective. Back in the 1980s-1990s a 1000 SAT would indicate 115 IQ/high IQ. Nowadays a person with 89 IQ on a professional IQ test could get a 1500-1600 SAT and someone with 120 IQ could get a 600 SAT. Just learn the concepts enough that you can answer some straightforward questions accurately. Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
And for a presentation with the word "GENETICS" in it, I'm surprised how little he went into the biological processes behind intelligence. He said nothing of how DNA constructs proteins in brain cells that somehow controls how people think and perform on tests from the cellular level. I wonder if this dude even know anything molecular biochemistry? He probably doesn't even know what an amino acid is...
If the research shows intelligence is associated with ethnic origin, will it be published? IQ distribution follows the bell curve. Are some races more to the left or right of the curve?
Actually, a bit of reasoning can completely debunk your assertions. For example, a person with Down Synd. simply will not be able to score high on an IQ test. Conversely, someone who is otherwise "normal" - even if they spent their whole life smoking pot, drinking, and watching TV - would virtually never score below a 60 or 70 on an IQ test. These demonstrate lower and upper limits of intelligence which cannot be explained by anything except intrinsic traits, in other words, genetics.
Down syndrome is a birth defect. People with it are not known to reproduce much, so as to pass on their genes. Birth defects are generally the result of something having gone wrong during pregnancy as far as my understanding goes.
@chocobofarmer2021 >Highest capacity problems in physics aren't that hard [citation needed] >We all have the same capacity [citation needed] >I don't think they have found much Except 40 years of kinship studies, a decade of GWAS studies. Physiological correlates for g. Predictive Validity of g. Etc
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
@chocobofarmer2021 The claim that there has not been enough time for evolution to act on non-superficial traits is not scientific. First because nonsuperficial traits take no more time to evolve than superficial traits. More importantly, reasonable selection parameters allow for significant differences to arise between populations in 100 years, much less 100,000.
Not really, it just follows that the higher a parents IQ is the rarer the chance of his offspring matching or surpassing it, but also a greater chance of beating the average, so the net gain is still very much positive.
@Mike Kane Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
@lennyhome Plus, there are no personal views supporting a radical social change, discrimination, or anything of the sort. Point to a single moment in this video where the speaker supports discrimination in any way. If you can't, then it's pretty obvious that you are prejudging (the same way you claim we/he is) others' value and opinions based on the video's title and description.
That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore.
I believe one clear problem with IQ tests involves the reliance on crystallized intelligence. Even in respect to progressive matrices, one can practice in order to familiarize oneself with "pattern recognition" exercises.... I think the emphasis on the "genetic origin" of "intelligence" (I believe our current definition is flawed), is a waste of ressources. It only takes into account one type of intelligence and focuses too much on genetics as opposed to epigenetics.
@lennyhome History does not give you the right to prejudge. If it does, maybe I should call out Christianity for the Crusades or all Germans as being Nazis. The past is the past. Moreover, valuation by intelligence is not discrimination. What can you judge a person by except for their various talents, aptitudes, and character? When you can tell me what you CAN judge a person by, and if this speaker judged by anything else, that's when you have the right to criticize, and definitely not before.
Intelligence or how high we score we score on an IQ, test or any test for that matter, does not determine how much we are worth or if we are better than other people or not.
5 or 10 years till we know all the genetics that make up intelligence? Well, we are still 99% away from the goal in 2016. The lecture was in 2011. So the first 4-5 years only got us 1% closer to the goal. Prediction = not likely.
a recent study made a great leap in mapping genes for intelligence. it was released in December 2015. Google it. there are 100s genes involved, and the are gene networks that researchers have named M1 and M3. there are also regulatory genes that act as switches.
Participating in this study is aiding the Chinese government in manufacturing a new generation of genuises who will overthrow the United States as a leader in innovation and discovery.
I might have missed the general issue but due to some "genetic" issues I tend to float out of the topic :S hope you can see what Im trying to say, cause my written language is so poor.
Very elitist, it doesn't even give a chance to normal people, he is interrested only in big brains, and I've found a missing point : comparison between low and high IQs for quality of life, number of friends, and more. Now it's normal, it's a domain where we should loose human concept and be like creators, not human.
What are the intelligent going to do to the unintelligent? We define success using very narrow parameters. Would Beethoven have passed such an IQ exam or would he have been aborted? What about Rosa Parks and the Chinese man who faced a tank in Tianamen square? The nuclear bomb was also created by very intelligent scientists. This study clearly favors the kind of intelligence peculiar to scientists like the one conducting this study. I find it macabre.
@chocobofarmer2021 How is that sadistic? The definition of sadism is the derivation of pleasure from infliction of pain. How does that factor into talking about designer babies? >He needs to think that out more or he's not so intelligent. Seriously. Complete red herring. If he were so unintelligent you'd be able to dispute his mathematics and genetics rather than just engaging in the tired old leftist tactic of traducing him.
The video I just saw is not shown using a CPU. CPUs have no control over RUclips videos. What the CPU does is add and substract numbers really fast, it cannot even change itself or what numbers it actually adds or subtracts. And it has no control over the chips on the motherboard either. Computer scientists have this experiment where they unplug the monitor from the PC and it still shows light and text and whatnot, which means the CPU has no control over what it shows (or RUclips videos).
@chocobofarmer2021 Nutrition and psychology are environmental variables but they do not have more predictive power of phenotypical traits than heritability. FACT I'm short mainly because of my genes.
@chocobofarmer2021 Oh, and don't bother to reply until you've found sources for your claims thanks. Sick of speaking to liberals who believe that they can make naked assertion after naked assertion with no corroborating proof.
@GoogleTechTalks How were circadian rhythms taken into account? 40% of the population are "early birds" and find most productivity to be in alignment with societal norms schedules. 30% are "night owls" and the remaining 30% are somewhere in between. Neuroscience has demonstrated how important adequate sleep is for memory consolidation. Inadequate sleep also decreases reaction times. Also the analogy made in the beginning how inherited intelligence is similar to inherited height, the size of someone's hippocampus is correlated with verbal intelligence, studies on cab drivers show evidence that the hippocampus can increase in size and revert back to their original size after retirement. Hippocampus size can be increased whereas someone's height cannot. What is unbeknownst to what society has labeled as " productive people and lazy people" is in fact a mismatch of circadian rhythm that favors those who are morning people. This entire presentation also doesn't mention epigenetic inheritance nor the Flynn effect. A child can have neural tube defects from folate deficiency in their prenatal environment or have genes "switched off" from a famine experienced by grandparents in which these genetic restrictions are passed down in more than one generation. This has also been observed in children from mothers who experienced traumatic events. This presentation has a poorly constructed argument that doesn't involve the points I mentioned.
Apparently, my DNA test says I have likelihood of average memory, cognitive ability math skills and intelligence. I FEEL stupid when comparing myself to others. And scored 135 IQ on an official Mensa Test with standard deviation of 15. I think the test is wrong. I dont think I am smart but that I have developed IQ traits because of being born with aphantasia. Anyone else with any thoughts on this? Edit: typo
According to my DNA I have a likelihood of 89 IQ. My IQ is 142 on a nonverbal general cognitive ability test that assesses raw intelligence and a 136 on the WAIS-IV for FSIQ because my memory brought me down and my lack of vocabulary apparently but my general IQ is 142.
@@qine6559 yes. I can't imagine anything. I'm not entirely sure why. I use raw reasoning ability to do well on spatial tests and it feels like cheating sometimes but it is what it is.
I'm willing to sacrifice myself knowing that life will be better for others, humans are selfish, that is why we still have dumb-ass fools making everyone else s life shitty.
@GeekProdigyGuy He discriminates on intelligence, which is no different from discriminating on hair, eyes or skin color. And as I said, due to history, I have every right to be prejudicial.
@addendum044 >sadistic and conservative Ad hom. >red states and britain Red herring. >not going to change my mind You've provided no evidence, your position is ideological (faith in egalitarianism), not scientific. The position of neurological uniformity is one that requires evidence, it's not default.
@infinummjb - okay, so maybe we have to go to China to do cutting edge research. But we have Jeebus riding dinosaurs in science class, so babam! Beat THAT, China!.
of course brains are genetically determined to some extent - why is this even a question? as to "variability of outcomes" come on dude. I'd view being a prof at oregon state or whatever as EPIC FAIL but others might find it awesome. I'd view being a construction worker who regularly bangs dimes as EPIC WIN, but if he does not appreciate opera or whatever horseshit someone else values, some would think this dude is a fail.
what is your obsession with penis' ? have you an underlying agenda ? In my generation,most australians were circumcised because they believed it was more hygienic.I didn't say all other people must be ok,or I'm ok because I have one,that's insane and YOUR words.You are more concerned about penis' and foreskins,than culture,so we are not on the same level.
10 лет назад
And just something- the hereditary and genetic base of IQ capability is not the only factor which makes up the IQ. Environment makes it as well- we quarrel about in which proportionality -if 80:20 or 90:10 ????
9 лет назад
CartoonPhilosopher i agree you did not understood me....hehe...
Fridrich Hláva I have been in China and I know Chinese women are very willing to have sex with white men.
8 лет назад
for money may be- never forget that Chinese can have a smile on their face- and a knife behind their back...- and I soubt You have been to Cunina- may be in Hong Kong, but not in inner China...
Fridrich Hláva I have been everywhere in China, Shenyang, Beijing, Shenzhen, HongKong, Shanghai, DanDong, QingDao, JiNan, Suzhou, I lived in China 5 years.
Dr Morton Hunt in the 1960s wrote an article in Playboy about IQ tests. He said we have many mental functions and some IQ tests were emphasizing different functions. Because ego is so coupled with IQ, he speculated the test writer optimized for his own battery of ablitiies.
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
The tenets of Jante Law are: . You shall not think you are special. . You shall not believe you are smarter than others. . You shall not believe you are wiser than others. . You shall not behave as if you are better than others. . You shall not believe that you know more than others. . You shall not believe that you can fix things better than others. . You shall not laugh at others. . You shall not believe that others care about you. . You shall not believe that you can teach others anything.
@antoine griezzman I was a lot smarter back then. The state used their intelligence to create drugs and drugged me. Now I'm under their control. Maybe you can figure it out in the next 9 years.
@eug1488 I'm not really a proponent of proactive eugenics, although I believe policies which give rise to dysgenic fertility should be halted. As for where you draw the line with deportation, that's a matter for debate and people differ in their opinions. I want to maintain a permenant white majority of 95%+ in all Europeans countries, so whatever deportation policies arrive at that outcome. Generally speaking what we need is a minimization of inflow with the maximum of outflow.
* having the genes is no guarantee of high IQ (a genetic pattern can be linked to high IQ but that does not mean causality) Most importantly, many people assume high IQ=success and achievement. We know that this is not the case; it is one of many factors. In the end, wouldn't we all prefer to live in a society where people are closer tofulfilling their potential vs a bunch of "intelligent" loosers?
@budoracle Are you saying that, since my intelligence is low, my genes are not worthy? I'm sure that several fine people in Nazi germany would have agreed with you.
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
Others can be trained to access thru flashback in trauma. A PTSD victim can become aware of this unconscious database, why would it not be practical to learn how to teach others in method. Predeterminations by methods of statistical outcomes, as we do operate in mostly habitual programming. People are predictable, but this sounds like eugenics to me & i cant condone that. Its a bit too evil for my blood. As the ones in power would never allow for humanity to decompartmentalize into PSI.
Can someone tell me what is the point of this research? As I believe the only use that is going to be made of this in the real world we live in, will be to identify the weak-minded and the feeble and then to justify their euthanasia or abortion. I despise psychology and biology. These subjects have brought untold misery and death upon millions of humans, and it appears we are setting the scene to continue that in future.
@IceFritzLanger Also, it would have prove the low number of friends for high IQs, and as I know it, high IQs don't like to loose, and they would, just by displaying those numbers for each category. The speaker has an high IQ, and he knees down when he sees one. He would beg me to do my laundry and would cook me a meal =))
Today you wouldn't be able to have this talk at Google.
Imagine this talk nowadays at Google. They would be blowd out of the orbit.
RIP James Damore
That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test.
@@angelDanJonathan That raises serious questions on the direction of the new educational efforts for students and parents. The school someone comes will probably weight much more in terms of admission criteria than level of achievement. Since most students will have high grades, but ingrained admissions to elite institutions will come from schools affiliated with the upper classes. Therefore, the fall of testing or its correlation with ability is actually consolidating the aristocracy of the 60s meritocrats.
Basically meritocracy declines while aristocracy strengthens its grip on opportunities.
@@FocusProj exactly.
@@FocusProj It's not aristocracy, the guiding principle is called "diversity".
2011: "If 10 years from now we all meet again in this room there is a very good chance that some of the key questions that are going to come up in our discussion today we'll know the answers to. And it's really purely driven by technology and economics."
2021: Driven by politics, the meeting is cancelled and the group is underground, like early Christians.
The meetings continue, but they're a bit smaller. A recent talk:
Steve Hsu - Intelligence, Embryo Selection, & The Future of Humanity
You didn't read the disclaimer😉😉
I never apologize for being the most informed person in the group?
This would not be a Google Talk in 2023. James Damore was fired in 2017. Haven't seen many Google Tech talks recently anyway.
After watching this video, I get the feeling that in 70 years people will be reading our comments here and only seeing: "Derpa der, derpa dur duh? Brondo! Electrolytes!"
I feel the same bro, 6 years later and there is all thoses ideologics groups destroying all the research and the strategy we had to save the western world from stupidity, i guess we lost that fight, we are not enought to balance it and to make the global change happening, people are just crying when you even tell the word eugenic, even if its positive word, they just think about Nazism (even if there is no relationship), and they refuse it, even in my country, all the law for saving the country by growing the average IQ with genetics tools have been wiped out because they said "no we prefer having Down's syndrome children, it
is discrimination against the disabled", a girl said "i have 3 disabled children on 9 so we need to make a disabled society because they exist and are part of it", i was like omg she is retarded, but she is rich and high power, sadly she destroyed the law, now the law is dead and they want "more disabled people inside the society, they even made laws to protect and help them to reproduce, its a total nigthmare, idiocracy will become a reality i guess...
@@quantumlife8426 We can only hope to escape earth using open-source rocket engineering to reproduce a reasonably intelligent human civilisation.
@@quantumlife8426 Wait...what country are you speaking of?
Its brawndo 'bruh' (new word from the future, idiocracy is still relevent)
I'd like to see an updated talk on this subject.
It will never happen, because in today's world we are all "equal" and if someone stands out for his genius it is not because of his genetics but because of mere "socioeconomic factors", period.
oh and if you say something different you are a bigot.
@@kasdimfer5156 in all countries..?
@@dipf7705 in the entire earth.
@@dipf7705 In the West.
@@angelDanJonathan Could you please link me the study on the modern SAT's correlation with IQ? I can't seem to find it
I'm a little bit surprised that RUclips or Google actually hasn't taken down this video
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
No but the algorithm does its best to hide it.
Well not really, I don't see how they are trying to "dumb down the population" they are just providing facts, based on research. In countries such as China or India students who are unable to learn like all the other children are sometimes greatly discriminated against, teachers think these students are lazy. With this research I believe people may be able to understand intellect better and understand that IQ is just a result of a our genetics.
An unusually clear presentation. Thank you.
I have an iq of 85 I work my ass off at school, and I still get shit grades. My life sucks.
Find something that you can do well and enjoy. Contribute. Life not all IQ.
You can work in Home Depot, be a janitor, run a landscaping crew. You can have a fine life in the US.
You ever get tested for adhd or something? Could be a big reason why you were having os much trouble.
Ok it's almost a decade later where is the follow up
He's been hamstrung and can't really talk about it. This research is considered racist by some, even though he never mentions race. He was targeted by the #ShutDownSTEM movement.
Many emotional and preconceived notions as one would expect in a topic like this; however I adjure viewers to watch this with an open mind,noting that Steve is less interested in promoting a particular view than he is in providing a landscape of the current state of research on the topic--which suggests good reason to support many of the mainstream claims of current IQ research. BTW, I was eligible to take part in this study based on the their requirements. but too apathetic to take part.
Bring back genius sperm banks. Corporations should set up their own sperm banks and stock them with their most talented employees.
cobrapatrol Men can have kids for a long part of their lives 😂😂
Buy women would still be attract to the outlaw biker types.
Nootropics
They still exist.
And goodlooking .lol you want a amart cute kid.
@lennyhome Those are the questions they wanted to answer, and their goals. And you might be right that their goals were moral. However, their means were deficient. Their experiments were often immoral; they also decided who was "inferior" based on personal opinion.
Here, we have scientists whose experiments are not painful or subjective. They want to find out what causes intelligence, and genetics clearly plays a part in the brain's development.
The results will be very painful. At the end of the talk he refers to eugenics, people chosing smart kids and aborting others. We are already doing that with the trisomy tests. Arguably immoral but inevitable.
I have an IQ of 85 but I have a fascination, with genetics and intelligence. I really don't see a problem with any of this research. In fact many people are starting to open their eyes to what intelligence really is with all this research. Now people could understand that people of all intelligence levels are equal, and our intelligence is primary a result of our genetics. Before people were ignorant of this fact and would discriminate against mentally handicap people, and kids unable to learn
You don't have an IQ of 85. You wouldn't be able to type out this comment, much less articulate any kind of coherent opinion on this subject
@@xSuperMetroidx The half of a certain worshiped group in the US scores below 85, yet we still have disparate impact laws.
You are just acting the part, to sell people on the story that you have been enlightened of your stupidity, per 85 IQ. IQ is junk science, and not a reliable measure of intelligence.
The Chinese want to harvest your genetic intelligence. :D
They would be disappointed
That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore.
Focusing on genetics is quite shortsighted for several reasons:
*high IQ is often related to a higher incidence of mental illness or (ironically) learning/cognitive disabilities (asperger's).
*if you start "breeding" people to gain IQ points, you potentially set your self up for affecting other areas linked to same gene. God built in genetic variability for a reason; its the best system out there...
ive recently discovered that im dumb. I can`t even write a proper sentence, and that just illustrates my low/mediocre iq. My intrests are in high iq fields. ill never be able to achive anything, that my inability to become anything intresting was set before my first cell division makes my life a curel slow plunge into emberrasment and i dont want to take part in it.
I feel u, man
Don't worry, scientists will help you. If we find the genes of inteligence and understand them, then we can modify them. So it is ok, that is the problem, that people think things are aleyas the same. No it is not. The future industries will be governed by intelligent beinga, and so the human capital has to be highly intelligent in order to increase productivity.
look up "Sarco X", it could be a solution for people like us who became aware of our own inferiority
You're wrong. You wrote a paragraph that moved me. That's magic right there.
It's just showing that low level operations can and do have high level impact. Think of the DNA code as an assembly code which is direct instructions to the processor and memory. It does only encode certain protein in certain places, but that's how it build you as an organism. The research presented here is not pseudoscience - it shows correlation between genes and cognitive abilities. The height heredity comparison the lecturer uses is a really good example. It's the exact same research.
Don't forget about epigenetics and the fact that we still don't know how expression of genes is controlled.
What I have learned through all the sites and articles, books and forums. Is that this is a so political inflammed subject to talk about, cause people that scores in the 96% tend to be afraid of an elitist society, or feels inferior. This is especially true in my country where we have and unspeaken social code called "jante law"
Will only make important contributions if you are 4 SDS above the mean?
Nemo Outis
Not 4, 2. Any more than 2 just makes it more and more likely.
That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore.
Jesus H mother loving Christ! It’s as if a group of people started crying that the sky is not blue so now we have to make the most sophisticated machines known to man and employ the most eloquent speakers to convey the finding that the sky is indeed blue.
There is such a thing as intelligence, it’s not equally distributed and if there’s one way we get more or less of it I’d bet on genes über alles.
This is such a frustrating time to live through. Instead of leaving the granted as granted and taking it for granted as we progress forward we’re stuck having to prove something that was taken for granted by our great great great great great great great grandfathers because some people FEEL that the truth and reality isn’t FAIR.
If brain can be linked to abstract thought and DNA can be linked to brain, then DNA can be linked to abstract thought, by Transitivity. So, your claim entails either that brain cannot be linked to abstract thought or that DNA cannot be linked to brain, both of which are patently false..
I don’t understand you grievance. I did not here that in the talk.
I find it ironic that this video has elicited so many stupid comments.
@chocobofarmer2021
See Henry Harpending's research on this.
Furthermore, is it true that races only differ in a few appearance related genes? Nope. We already have this data and it's not true by a long shot.
>In a study of East Asians, Europeans and Africans, Dr. Pritchard and his colleagues found 700 regions of the genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection in recent times. In East Asians, the average date of these selection events is 6,600 years ago.
Intelligence can not be compared to height. The amount of genes that code for intelligence are far too many compared to the few genes that code for height
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
Proof? Remember that some animals, even bacteria, have more chromosomes then humans, but that doesn't make bacteria have a more complex system then the human body.
The greatest gains in benefit would be derived from figuring out environmental factors which would lead to increases in large populations. On average, there has been a 10 point increase in IQ scores per decade.
What factors are related to physical factors (improved nutrition, reduced exposure to known toxins like lead, etc), how many to improved psychosocial factors (increased stimulation through school, reduced childhood stress, etc).
10 points per decade?! What planet are you from?
@@peterfireflylund lol.. came here to say similar.
@@peterfireflylund actually, what he is referring to the Flynn affect. When Socioeconomics factors improve intelligence/IQ test scores increase. As a matter of fact each year we have to increase the IQ test difficulty. So the average stays at a hundred
@@Sheltered I know about the Flynn “affect”, thank you very much. That is *precisely* why I had to comment on the ludicrous figure of 10 points per decade.
If *you* took the time to learn more about it, you wouldn’t ascribe it to “Socioeconomics factors” in the usual sense, but to better nutrition and fewer childhood diseases. Once the nutrition is good enough and enough childhood diseases are avoided, there is nothing more to be gained by improved “Socioeconomics factors”.
Btw, there is a funny thing… the IQ gain measured depends on the IQ test used, with Raven’s progressive matrices showing a much larger gain than any of the other tests. There is every reason to believe the gains measured by that test are largely “hollow”, that is, they don’t represent a real gain in the underlying intelligence.
…But you already knew that, didn’t you?
@@peterfireflylund those are... socioeconomic factors and I assume the results are collected from a wide array of test not just one kind. Either way in most recent times it seems like results are tapering off so guess you would have to explain how they can’t go up and why they are staying the same at this new “peak”
I had to catch myself when he said " _We're almost at the stage where we can analyse_ [GWAS data] " - all I could think was "Dude, have you been asleep? TensorFlow that shit, bro!".
Then I noticed... *2011* - Machine Learning was barely a thing. (I did the Stanford Machine Learning course in 2014; by 2017 doing Deep Learning projects was trivial thanks to TensorFlow)
Not me watching this 12 years later
I have a genuine question about my own history. SAT only 1220, 4.0 GPA at UO and recently (8 yrs after graduation) 327 GRE. So what might explain the inconsistency? And also if being a Chinese student (non-native English speaker) explains part of it, meaning my English sucked in the beginning thus my unsatisfactory SAT score and now it's better thus my quite decent GRE score, then what insurmountable hurdle could prevent a US-native from improving their verbal and quantitative performance? Does that then invalidate the claim that GRE=SAT=IQ?
You just improved your language to the point that you can understand the questions and answer properly... Doesnt mean your g increased. Once you know the language you reasoning ability in that language doesnt improve.
Like if you are tired, sleeping will improve your test scores. Sleeping some more after that wont increase the scores further. Otherwise I would be Einstein.
Most foreign students because they stay as students for sometimes improvement their focus and concentration and test taking skills. The IQ according to this talk is predictable even by the first few exams you did when you were in elementary school. If you did well in those days , you did as well at 15 years old and you did as good at 25 years old. It should be consistent
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
Different tests will yield different results. Just take an official IQ test/the WAIS-IV and stop contemplating on what your IQ is.
Does anyone have the results of this study and where can I find it?
@IceFritzLanger they are studying one phenotype: raw "intelligence." There are of course other factors to how someone functions such as their motivation and social interaction as he mentioned (I guess you weren't paying attention?)
"quality of life" is very hard to quantify.
Could someone please tell me if I can get a perfect SAT score (1400+) with a 115 iq score, and a lot of practice? Does this correlation between the SAT and iq test would not let me to score that high?
anyone can get a perfect sat score. if ur goal is perfection focus on math first if you have a full understanding of the math concepts and are able to complete at least 4 perfect scores on practice tests you shouldn’t get any wrong on ur actual test. knowing reading concepts and questions styles are part of preparing for the reading section but a lot of it is building ur ability to recognize what you are reading and retain what you are reading if you are able to retain main ideas from texts it’ll make eliminating wrong answer choices 100 times easier. for writing it’s mostly recognizing concepts and being able to maintain pace through the questions taking practice tests helps so much with the writing score.
In short yes. 115 IQ is easily enough to get a 1600 on the SAT. If people with 89 IQ can get a 1600 on the SAT then someone with 115 can figure it out as well. Just to put in into perspective. Back in the 1980s-1990s a 1000 SAT would indicate 115 IQ/high IQ. Nowadays a person with 89 IQ on a professional IQ test could get a 1500-1600 SAT and someone with 120 IQ could get a 600 SAT. Just learn the concepts enough that you can answer some straightforward questions accurately. Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
Do you know anything about the inheritance of traits? Tell me some things about DNA.
And for a presentation with the word "GENETICS" in it, I'm surprised how little he went into the biological processes behind intelligence. He said nothing of how DNA constructs proteins in brain cells that somehow controls how people think and perform on tests from the cellular level. I wonder if this dude even know anything molecular biochemistry? He probably doesn't even know what an amino acid is...
If the research shows intelligence is associated with ethnic origin, will it be published? IQ distribution follows the bell curve. Are some races more to the left or right of the curve?
Actually, a bit of reasoning can completely debunk your assertions.
For example, a person with Down Synd. simply will not be able to score high on an IQ test. Conversely, someone who is otherwise "normal" - even if they spent their whole life smoking pot, drinking, and watching TV - would virtually never score below a 60 or 70 on an IQ test. These demonstrate lower and upper limits of intelligence which cannot be explained by anything except intrinsic traits, in other words, genetics.
Down syndrome is a birth defect. People with it are not known to reproduce much, so as to pass on their genes. Birth defects are generally the result of something having gone wrong during pregnancy as far as my understanding goes.
Nothing you said debunks anything; that’s just fact
@chocobofarmer2021
>Highest capacity problems in physics aren't that hard
[citation needed]
>We all have the same capacity
[citation needed]
>I don't think they have found much Except 40 years of kinship studies, a decade of GWAS studies. Physiological correlates for g. Predictive Validity of g. Etc
He isn't providing very much detail, would love to hear more
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
@chocobofarmer2021
The claim that there has not been enough time for evolution to act on non-superficial traits is not scientific. First because nonsuperficial traits take no more time to evolve than superficial traits. More importantly, reasonable selection parameters allow for significant differences to arise between populations in 100 years, much less 100,000.
Example please.
I am a black African living in Kenya. What is my IQ?
Who knows? Get it tested!
@S E P OK thank you
@@-scrim I will
@Welp! Trump banning Tik Tok! lol I didn't know! thanks
@EK89 that is quite a double digits answer
@coolman9999uk Understanding human mental functioning better is offensive?
9 years ago it seemed impossible hearing that from an average person. Now sadly it is a common thought
Regression to the mean is key. 10% chance of not regressing. That blows eugenics out of the water.
Not really, it just follows that the higher a parents IQ is the rarer the chance of his offspring matching or surpassing it, but also a greater chance of beating the average, so the net gain is still very much positive.
google would never post this nowadays
Why?
@Mike Kane Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
I'm short, it must be caused by environment and shit.
So this was 9 years ago and he said they would have the data in 5-10 years. So where is the data.
Look up James Lee’s discussion of GWAS of educational attainment in 3 million individuals.
Where are the slides?
were the questions answered?
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
What? Im pretty sure smart people have smart kids.
where did he say they didn't? moron
Google, this channel is awesome, but please fix the audio. It would make the entire experience way better.
@lennyhome Plus, there are no personal views supporting a radical social change, discrimination, or anything of the sort. Point to a single moment in this video where the speaker supports discrimination in any way. If you can't, then it's pretty obvious that you are prejudging (the same way you claim we/he is) others' value and opinions based on the video's title and description.
You can't deny any of it.
That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore.
I believe one clear problem with IQ tests involves the reliance on crystallized intelligence.
Even in respect to progressive matrices, one can practice in order to familiarize oneself with "pattern recognition" exercises....
I think the emphasis on the "genetic origin" of "intelligence" (I believe our current definition is flawed), is a waste of ressources. It only takes into account one type of intelligence and focuses too much on genetics as opposed to epigenetics.
@1:00:58 - tDCS, tACS and other things are doing this right now.
@lennyhome
History does not give you the right to prejudge. If it does, maybe I should call out Christianity for the Crusades or all Germans as being Nazis. The past is the past.
Moreover, valuation by intelligence is not discrimination. What can you judge a person by except for their various talents, aptitudes, and character? When you can tell me what you CAN judge a person by, and if this speaker judged by anything else, that's when you have the right to criticize, and definitely not before.
Intelligence or how high we score we score on an IQ, test or any test for that matter, does not determine how much we are worth or if we are better than other people or not.
Determine? No. Influence? Yes. We just pretend otherwise most of the time in polite society.
5 or 10 years till we know all the genetics that make up intelligence? Well, we are still 99% away from the goal in 2016. The lecture was in 2011. So the first 4-5 years only got us 1% closer to the goal.
Prediction = not likely.
a recent study made a great leap in mapping genes for intelligence. it was released in December 2015. Google it. there are 100s genes involved, and the are gene networks that researchers have named M1 and M3. there are also regulatory genes that act as switches.
XplusX12345678 Thanks. How much do they account for?
+Jurij Fedorov Have you not heard of exponential progress in information technology ? Once we reach 1%, the work is nearly done.
Another 10 - 20 years from now one
Participating in this study is aiding the Chinese government in manufacturing a new generation of genuises who will overthrow the United States as a leader in innovation and discovery.
I might have missed the general issue but due to some "genetic" issues I tend to float out of the topic :S
hope you can see what Im trying to say, cause my written language is so poor.
I agree with your last statement.
Very elitist, it doesn't even give a chance to normal people, he is interrested only in big brains, and I've found a missing point : comparison between low and high IQs for quality of life, number of friends, and more.
Now it's normal, it's a domain where we should loose human concept and be like creators, not human.
Sarcasm aside, what's the point of this post of yours?
Well, you tell me. How does DNA/RNA and a protein give you a predetermined IQ range?
What are the intelligent going to do to the unintelligent? We define success using very narrow parameters. Would Beethoven have passed such an IQ exam or would he have been aborted? What about Rosa Parks and the Chinese man who faced a tank in Tianamen square? The nuclear bomb was also created by very intelligent scientists. This study clearly favors the kind of intelligence peculiar to scientists like the one conducting this study. I find it macabre.
Yes, Beethoven and Parks and Tank Man would have passed it.
Composing classical music is pretty intellectually demanding, actually.
@chocobofarmer2021
How is that sadistic? The definition of sadism is the derivation of pleasure from infliction of pain. How does that factor into talking about designer babies?
>He needs to think that out more or he's not so intelligent. Seriously.
Complete red herring. If he were so unintelligent you'd be able to dispute his mathematics and genetics rather than just engaging in the tired old leftist tactic of traducing him.
I think anyone can learn regardless of genetics, of course it helps.
@bookbagged Not really because soon we will have the ability to map the genome of the fetus, don't you think?
what is biological intelligence
The video I just saw is not shown using a CPU. CPUs have no control over RUclips videos.
What the CPU does is add and substract numbers really fast, it cannot even change itself or what numbers it actually adds or subtracts. And it has no control over the chips on the motherboard either. Computer scientists have this experiment where they unplug the monitor from the PC and it still shows light and text and whatnot, which means the CPU has no control over what it shows (or RUclips videos).
@chocobofarmer2021 Nutrition and psychology are environmental variables but they do not have more predictive power of phenotypical traits than heritability. FACT
I'm short mainly because of my genes.
@chocobofarmer2021
Oh, and don't bother to reply until you've found sources for your claims thanks. Sick of speaking to liberals who believe that they can make naked assertion after naked assertion with no corroborating proof.
BGI - rms would solve the problem by recursion.
@GoogleTechTalks How were circadian rhythms taken into account? 40% of the population are "early birds" and find most productivity to be in alignment with societal norms schedules. 30% are "night owls" and the remaining 30% are somewhere in between. Neuroscience has demonstrated how important adequate sleep is for memory consolidation. Inadequate sleep also decreases reaction times. Also the analogy made in the beginning how inherited intelligence is similar to inherited height, the size of someone's hippocampus is correlated with verbal intelligence, studies on cab drivers show evidence that the hippocampus can increase in size and revert back to their original size after retirement. Hippocampus size can be increased whereas someone's height cannot. What is unbeknownst to what society has labeled as " productive people and lazy people" is in fact a mismatch of circadian rhythm that favors those who are morning people. This entire presentation also doesn't mention epigenetic inheritance nor the Flynn effect. A child can have neural tube defects from folate deficiency in their prenatal environment or have genes "switched off" from a famine experienced by grandparents in which these genetic restrictions are passed down in more than one generation. This has also been observed in children from mothers who experienced traumatic events. This presentation has a poorly constructed argument that doesn't involve the points I mentioned.
This guy lost his job at Michigan State University during the height of BLM hysteria in June 2020.
If you spend most of your life spreading lies, it means that you will not successful in life because you are only wasting your time.
If
BLM hysteria - oh yes the murder of unarmed minorities by police and related coverups. Clearly an overreaction...🙄
@@tonymccann7445 An academic losing his job because of police misconduct... doesn't sound very rational.
@@snippletrap The hysteria was the right wing snowflakes that feel threatened by 3 scary letters!
Also, I have to ask (and I already know the answer), but did you ever study molecular biology? In any capacity?
Apparently, my DNA test says I have likelihood of average memory, cognitive ability math skills and intelligence. I FEEL stupid when comparing myself to others. And scored 135 IQ on an official Mensa Test with standard deviation of 15. I think the test is wrong. I dont think I am smart but that I have developed IQ traits because of being born with aphantasia. Anyone else with any thoughts on this?
Edit: typo
According to my DNA I have a likelihood of 89 IQ. My IQ is 142 on a nonverbal general cognitive ability test that assesses raw intelligence and a 136 on the WAIS-IV for FSIQ because my memory brought me down and my lack of vocabulary apparently but my general IQ is 142.
@@angelDanJonathan dats awesome. Just a random question. Do you have aphantasia? I do and so my memory is not the best..
@@qine6559 yes. I can't imagine anything. I'm not entirely sure why. I use raw reasoning ability to do well on spatial tests and it feels like cheating sometimes but it is what it is.
@@angelDanJonathan Would you please tell me exactly how your DNA was used to predict your IQ?
@@tonyharris7684 23andme
I'm willing to sacrifice myself knowing that life will be better for others, humans are selfish, that is why we still have dumb-ass fools making everyone else s life shitty.
@GeekProdigyGuy He discriminates on intelligence, which is no different from discriminating on hair, eyes or skin color. And as I said, due to history, I have every right to be prejudicial.
really boring
@addendum044
>sadistic and conservative
Ad hom.
>red states and britain
Red herring.
>not going to change my mind
You've provided no evidence, your position is ideological (faith in egalitarianism), not scientific. The position of neurological uniformity is one that requires evidence, it's not default.
Thompson Jose Perez Brenda Moore Larry
@arsviatticae
Nothing wrong for me too, but they are not better than average joe =)
This uber smart think he is, that's my point .
Have a nice day.
@infinummjb - okay, so maybe we have to go to China to do cutting edge research. But we have Jeebus riding dinosaurs in science class, so babam! Beat THAT, China!.
of course brains are genetically determined to some extent - why is this even a question?
as to "variability of outcomes" come on dude. I'd view being a prof at oregon state or whatever as EPIC FAIL but others might find it awesome. I'd view being a construction worker who regularly bangs dimes as EPIC WIN, but if he does not appreciate opera or whatever horseshit someone else values, some would think this dude is a fail.
what is your obsession with penis' ? have you an underlying agenda ? In my generation,most australians were circumcised because they believed it was more hygienic.I didn't say all other people must be ok,or I'm ok because I have one,that's insane and YOUR words.You are more concerned about penis' and foreskins,than culture,so we are not on the same level.
And just something- the hereditary and genetic base of IQ capability is not the only factor which makes up the IQ. Environment makes it as well- we quarrel about in which proportionality -if 80:20 or 90:10 ????
CartoonPhilosopher i agree you did not understood me....hehe...
Fridrich Hláva East Asian have large brains and small penis....black have gigantic garden house penis and pea brain....whites are in the middle.
Fridrich Hláva I have been in China and I know Chinese women are very willing to have sex with white men.
for money may be- never forget that Chinese can have a smile on their face- and a knife behind their back...- and I soubt You have been to Cunina- may be in Hong Kong, but not in inner China...
Fridrich Hláva I have been everywhere in China, Shenyang, Beijing, Shenzhen, HongKong, Shanghai, DanDong, QingDao, JiNan, Suzhou, I lived in China 5 years.
Dr Morton Hunt in the 1960s wrote an article in Playboy about IQ tests. He said we have many mental functions and some IQ tests were emphasizing different functions. Because ego is so coupled with IQ, he speculated the test writer optimized for his own battery of ablitiies.
Clark Magnuson - An article in Playboy? In the 1960s? Sounds legit.
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
The tenets of Jante Law are:
. You shall not think you are special.
. You shall not believe you are smarter than others.
. You shall not believe you are wiser than others.
. You shall not behave as if you are better than others.
. You shall not believe that you know more than others.
. You shall not believe that you can fix things better than others.
. You shall not laugh at others.
. You shall not believe that others care about you.
. You shall not believe that you can teach others anything.
The results of which are: You shall not maintain control over your own country's destiny. You will be overrun by the normies.
@GeekProdigyGuy It's not me who prejudge stuff like this. It's history that does. And I had not doubt you were a radical chic atheist.
What's wrong with diversity? Other cultures are beautiful and interesting, and so is mine :)
I can prove genetics and intelligence is design control.
@antoine griezzman I was a lot smarter back then. The state used their intelligence to create drugs and drugged me. Now I'm under their control. Maybe you can figure it out in the next 9 years.
@eug1488
I'm not really a proponent of proactive eugenics, although I believe policies which give rise to dysgenic fertility should be halted.
As for where you draw the line with deportation, that's a matter for debate and people differ in their opinions. I want to maintain a permenant white majority of 95%+ in all Europeans countries, so whatever deportation policies arrive at that outcome. Generally speaking what we need is a minimization of inflow with the maximum of outflow.
* having the genes is no guarantee of high IQ (a genetic pattern can be linked to high IQ but that does not mean causality)
Most importantly, many people assume high IQ=success and achievement. We know that this is not the case; it is one of many factors. In the end, wouldn't we all prefer to live in a society where people are closer tofulfilling their potential vs a bunch of "intelligent" loosers?
Damn this was my idea for research
@budoracle Are you saying that, since my intelligence is low, my genes are not worthy? I'm sure that several fine people in Nazi germany would have agreed with you.
Genetics and a glorified short term memory test.
what part of the SAT is short term memory? moron
Intelligence is highly correlated with short term memory. Read Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow.
@@snippletrap so is every other index yet some people with genius IQs sometimes score low for working memory.
Yeah this video is now considered misinformation. That's with the old SAT (1980-1994). New SAT has around .4 correlation with intelligence. It's not much of a difference but the newer one is significantly worse than the old SAT. Anyway intelligence doesn't matter in academia anymore and hardwork and grit is now more valued. A high SAT score nowadays means you worked hard to get it. The old SAT 1980-1990 used to have a .7-.9 correlation with IQ so that one did have a significant correlation with IQ. Not sure what happened? All high IQ societies decided that the new SAT is not an IQ test anymore and it isn't used for admissions for high IQ societies. It makes sense as the new SAT only has 16% in relation with intelligence and 84% is unexplained. Essentially any 89 IQ person could get a 1500 SAT and any 120 could score as low as 600. But yeah there's a reason why no one cares about a 1600 anymore. Basically you'd be wrong to assume an SAT score in the 1100+ range indicates high IQ nowadays. Nothing wrong with the old one though it's still highly reliable and works as an IQ test even untimed (cronbach .96) but the current one untimed etc is highly questionable as an IQ test. The IQ test abstract reasoning questions are now removed from the SAT as of now.
Others can be trained to access thru flashback in trauma. A PTSD victim can become aware of this unconscious database, why would it not be practical to learn how to teach others in method. Predeterminations by methods of statistical outcomes, as we do operate in mostly habitual programming. People are predictable, but this sounds like eugenics to me & i cant condone that. Its a bit too evil for my blood. As the ones in power would never allow for humanity to decompartmentalize into PSI.
Psychometrics is crap but it can be better
Can someone tell me what is the point of this research? As I believe the only use that is going to be made of this in the real world we live in, will be to identify the weak-minded and the feeble and then to justify their euthanasia or abortion.
I despise psychology and biology. These subjects have brought untold misery and death upon millions of humans, and it appears we are setting the scene to continue that in future.
myroseaccount Misery and death?! No antibiotics for you, then.
Not sure that Fleming's discovery, who was neither a biologist or a psychologist, justifies the killing of millions of people.
Change school. Your problem might be shitty teachers and/or a shitty family environment that makes you depressed.
😂😂😂😂😂In HK for safety.
@IceFritzLanger
Also, it would have prove the low number of friends for high IQs, and as I know it, high IQs don't like to loose, and they would, just by displaying those numbers for each category. The speaker has an high IQ, and he knees down when he sees one. He would beg me to do my laundry and would cook me a meal =))