Did you know that IQ is adjusted for gender? "Most IQ

File: 1491982108188.jpg (161KB, 747x1120px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 747x1120px

Remember to subtract 15 points to obtain your Ashkenazi adjusted iq score.

File: 1450765976891.gif (2MB, 236x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 236x224px

>>IQ
What the fuck is your problem, people?
Why is this ancient bullshit still so goddamn popular?
Are you also proponents of bloodletting and lobotomy?

>>8955864
https://youtu.be/jSo5v5t4OQM
Just listen to this faggot

>>8955864
>t. ignoramus

>>8955844
>Did you know that IQ is adjusted for gender?
Do you even know what an IQ test is? Of course it is adjusted for gender, because every IQ test should be adjusted for the population it tests.

File: facepalm.jpg~c200.jpg (8KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x200px

>>8955895
Yeah let's adjust for some chimpanzee population and get fucked in the ass when the scores come equal to human levels. Please, just leave, dumbarse

>>8955896
>get fucked in the ass
???
You are already proposing a purpose to the IQ studies.

Go back to /pol/ faggot.

>>8955896
IQ test are not meant for comparing different populations, but individuals in a certain population which establishes a norm.
I you say something like "the average IQ of north american people is 102, while IQ of europoors is 104", then you will be misusing it.

>>8955896
hint: if you are going to do an IQ test on literally chimpanzees, then you should design the test so their results should average on 100 too.

File: 1493918710595.png.png (133KB, 556x610px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 556x610px

>>8955844
So you mean to tell me Asians have an IQ of 104 with a standard deviation of 8? 8 points
Where is the source on that lmao
Asians have higher variability scores on PISA, SAT and don't have a lower SD on IQ tests.
In fact I've never seen any testing where Asians show lower SD. Any.
This is just a stormfront meme
>asians are faggots
Yeah, sure

>>8955895
You have no idea what you're talking about m8.

>>8955905

not when you are doing IQ test on chimps AND humans

the point is that IQ tests done for men and women should be the same and there is no reason to adjust them

>>8955844
Honest question. How does culture influence the outcome of a simple pattern recognition test l?

>>8955905
It's not to average on 100, idiot, it's to set 100 as the median.

>>8955844
>Most IQ tests are constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males.
>overall score differences
Well yes - a real IQ test ought to contain a balance between verbal and visuaospatial.

>>8955844
did you know that whites have the highest IQs?

>>8955911
There are at least 2 good sources I've seen on this, one is in a post made by an asian: http://infoproc.blogspot.com.br/2008/06/asian-white-iq-variance-from-pisa.html

"although NE Asians exhibit higher averages than whites in psychometric tests (SAT, IQ, etc.), some suspect a smaller variance, leading to fewer "geniuses" per capita, despite the higher mean. See, e.g., this article in National Review:
...The two populations also differ in the variability of their scores. A representative sample of Americans or Europeans will show more variability than will an East Asian sample. In the familiar bell-shaped distribution curve, the bell is much narrower for the Japanese--which is what you would expect from such a homogeneous population."

And the second one is better:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htm

It only involves some thought to reach the same conclusion.

>>8955941
>http://infoproc.blogspot.com.br/2008/06/asian-white-iq-variance-from-pisa.html
You are a fucking retard. I mean it.

HE GOES ON TO DEBUNK IT YOU FUCKING USELESS MORON

I've never seen any data to support the smaller NE Asian SD claim. Looking at SAT data shows a larger variance for the Asian-Pacific Islander category, but that is not surprising since it's a catch-all category that includes S. Asians, SE Asians, NE Asians and Pacific Islanders. I've found very little analysis specific to NE Asians, so I decided to produce some myself. I took the 2006 PISA (OECD Program for International Student Assessment) data, which is painstakingly assembled every 3 years by a huge team of psychologists and educators (400k students from 57 countries tested). The samples are supposed to be statistically representative of the various countries, and the tests are carefully translated into different languages. Most studies of national IQ are quite crude, and subject to numerous methodological uncertainties, although the overall results tend to correlate with PISA results.

Below is what I obtained from the 2006 PISA mathematics exam data (overall rankings by average score here). To get the data, scroll down this page and download the chapter 6 data in .xls spreadsheet format. Level 6 is the highest achievement category listed in the data. For most OECD countries, e.g., France, Germany, UK, only a few percent of students attained this level of performance. In NE Asian countries as many as 11% of students performed at this level. Using these percentages and the country averages, one can extract the SD. (Level 6 = raw score 669, or +1.88SD for OECD, +1.28SD for NE Asians.)

OECD AVG=500 SD=90

NE Asia (HK, Korea, Taiwan) AVG=548 SD=95

The NE Asians performed about .5 SD better on average (consistent with IQ test results), and exhibited similar (somewhat higher) variance.

>>8955942
>>8955941
OH BUT IT GETS BETTER:

The NE Asians performed about .5 SD better on average (consistent with IQ test results), and exhibited similar (somewhat higher) variance. (After doing my calculations I realized that there is actually a table of means and SDs in the spreadsheet, that more or less agree with my results. The standard error for the given SDs is only 1-2 points, so I guess a gap of 5 or 10 points is statistically significant.)

Interestingly, the Finns performed quite well on the exam, posting a very high average, but their SD is smaller. The usual arguments about a (slightly) "narrow bell curve" might apply to the Finns, but apparently not to the NE Asians.

Finland AVG=548 SD=80

So your first "source" is actually a guy arguing for the VERY OPPOSITE of what you want.
You piece of shit you

>>8955944
His argument is not right, and I'm referring to the quoted article in National Review. I can see you are not even reading it, but simply skimming it

>>8955938
Actually my native mixed family is the most intelligent group of people I ever knew. My granpa owned two companies, my father owned one and was one of the best also had a lot of politician and geologist experience. My brothers and I were excellent at Math and school was easy for us.

The bad side is that my granpa fucked up my father future leaving his family and my father got fucked by the bankrupt of several banks thanks to the corruption of peruvian politicians and we got nothing of the proffit.

Also he divorced my mom when I was a kid, yet we all are very intelligent. We are mostly inca kangz, we got a bit of nigger blood so we can be "retards" when the social circumstances requires it and got above average dicks, and we got iberian genes so we can understand the behavior of the soccer culture of the primate living in Spain.

We all had intelectual talent.

Incas were superior. Deal with it.

>>8955941
>http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htm

1. focuses on verbal IQ
2. is not a paper, but some obnoxious dialogue between retards
3. has debunked IQ data from the wealth of nations by richard lynn
4. Assumes asians 'are lagging', when they actually aren't
>>8955946
>his argument is not right
Show me TESTING where we can see Asians having lower SD's. And what are the values of the SD's. So we can plot them.
It's obvious the Asian SD isn't 8 points you piece of shit.

NO such testing exists

File: Akkere+rolled+a+random+image+posted+in+comment+75+at+_fc4d689d6800f042f397c02a8067bb04.jpg (33KB, 286x400px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 286x400px

>>8955949
I can see you can't read for shit, kek. Just go away then

>>8955955
Faggot, What is the white SD and what is the Asian SD? With a source where some testing was done
So far the majority of the evidence is that the SD is the same or higher for Asians.

Based on PISA, SAT and even direct IQ testing.

SO go on

>>8955904
So it's also wrong to say that actual retards have a lower iq as a group?

>>8955949
>http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htm
Holy KEK people take this seriously?

>Oh we're just gonna "adjust" for this and that like this because why not :^)
>We're also gonna throw out the tests that have too varied score on various sections because that's annoying and doesn't fit what we want
Maybe it's just me but it seems that in part it has become a self playing piano, everything else is wrong because we say this is right.

>>8955995
Consider this: to understand how IQ is done, Gaussian curves, mental chronometry, universal turing machines, you need to have a considerably high IQ of 130 or more points. Of course, this means that the majority is oblivious to corruption, their positioning will be always emotional: "IQ is right, this is science!" or "IQ is biased and racist, there are other intelligence, you would know that if you were intelligent!", they can't evaluate any further than that: Is IQ comparable between two separate sets of data? Is an IQ test the same as Raven's Matrices? Is the Flynn effect clearly false? Are Points in Standard Deviation the same as Standard Deviation? Is there a selection against intelligence? Are children as smart as grown ups of same IQ?

Sci approved IQ test:

> What is the value of 1+2+3+4+5+... ?
> Extend Maxwell's equations to allow for scalar death rays, just as Tesla predicted!
> What is the sum of the first two 7-adic numbers?
> Which of these formulas best describes antigravity?
> Pick the person that does not fit the set: Tao - Barnett - Rodgers - Galois
> Rank the following majors in a tier system, starting from garbage tier to god tier: environmental engineering, memetics engineering, nuclear physics, art and design!

>>8955986
Yes. You can use IQ to say that a subgroup of a group is retarded though.

>>8956022
> Undefined
> Physics is useless
> According to the NIST handbook, 3
> Physics is useless
> Barnett, Physics is useless
Garbage Tier: Nuclear Physics and Environmental Engineering. Medium Tier: Art and Design. God Tier: Mathematics.

File: ah yes.jpg (127KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1440x900px

>>8956030
>being this mad about Physics

>>8956022
It works!
>>8956030 high IQ
>>8956068 low IQ

>>8955844
Let's adjust for blacks and arabs and not be surprised when they're as intelligent as whites.

>>8956030

Physics is to Mathematics what sex is to masturbation.

File: 2.jpg (11KB, 153x208px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 153x208px

>>8956030 >>8956068 >>8956179

Memetic Meme (Mathematical Physics) > Pure Meme = Theoretical Meme > Applied Meme = Experimental Meme = Memetic Science > Memetic Engineering > Numerical Meme = Memetic Computing > Meme Technology > Meme Bootcamp > Environmental Meme > Liberal Memes > Meme Studies

>>8955875

The more I listen to Jordan Peterson, the more I think he's a pseudo-intellectual

>>8956371
He clearly is.

>if you reject IQ you have to reject all psychology because the other stuff isn't as well defined
Yeah and being less defined might be what makes it less wrong...

Also

>m-m-muh marxist persecution!

>>8955911
Lynn was a weeb and a hack

His studies where he determines Japanese IQ to be 111 were drawn from elite samples of university graduates and their children, then compared to the white American average

>>8956371
Why?

>>8955856
I'd still have 113 IQ though.

>>8956376
Psychometric testing is the only reproducible result the entire field of psychology consistently produces so uh...I think you should shut the fuck up.

>>8955844
Remember that IQ test were designed by psychologist and it only evaluates certain realms of conscience but not all.

For most intents and purposes they are useless.

>>8955923
IQ is normally distributed, idiot. those are the same thing.

>>8955844
It's not "adjusted for" it's called statistical normalizing you dolt. All IQ scores are based on statistical normalization. For example, in your picture men just have a larger spread than women.

>>8957082
They aren't, extra-tard

>>8957154
He is right. IQ is statistically normalized.