Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/43828150_10156700654952264_6658922475448958976_n_10156700654947264.jpg According to this graph, the IQ for university degree is 120+. Which means roughly 10% of the population is capable of a university degree in a calculable field.

The rest is not education. It’s pseudoscience, sophims, and religion.Andy UjkuWhere would literature fall in this?Oct 11, 2018, 8:49 PMArne TorbkornssonWhere is Biomedicine or Biology ?Oct 11, 2018, 8:49 PMArne TorbkornssonGarboOct 11, 2018, 8:49 PMArne TorbkornssonYou don’t need to pay to study literature, you can go to a library and do thatOct 11, 2018, 8:49 PMAndy UjkuGarbo?Oct 11, 2018, 8:49 PMArne TorbkornssonGarbageOct 11, 2018, 8:50 PMAndy UjkuDamn, I got the wrong degree lolOct 11, 2018, 8:50 PMJosef WittlichI wonder where various trades fall?Oct 11, 2018, 8:52 PMGiego CaleiroAnalytic philosophy is the highest.

148 average.

You’ve heard it.Oct 11, 2018, 8:53 PMDuje DanteI wonder where would business majors land? Id assume in the lower half, considering finance operations and accounting are the only real business feilds, all else is social sciencesOct 11, 2018, 8:53 PMJosef KalininIt’s very telling that psychology students are one of the most pretentious and condescending ones of all, yet they score mediocre on the IQ scale.Oct 11, 2018, 8:54 PMDarren O’ConnorInteresting. That meshes well with a Charles Murray book I just read (Real Education), in which he talks about how probably only 10% of high school graduates are actually college material and the rest should be learning trades.Oct 11, 2018, 9:04 PMRichard JacobsonIs a sophim a being of pure wisdom?Oct 11, 2018, 9:06 PMأنس برادةAbderrahman ZaatriOct 11, 2018, 9:07 PMBen FrayleThis graph is fundamentally flawed in reality.\Oct 11, 2018, 9:08 PMDuje DanteBen Frayle yeah way too high on the iq scaleOct 11, 2018, 9:09 PMBen Fraylehttps://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/functionally-illiterate-can-complete-degrees-20160802-gqistk.htmlOct 11, 2018, 9:09 PMSteve PenderIt used to even be only 10% who went to college.Oct 11, 2018, 9:12 PMBen FrayleAnd it used to be a lot less than that – only a small number of students finished high school.Oct 11, 2018, 9:21 PMFox BeattieI’m sure someone, somewhere “can’t even” right nowOct 11, 2018, 10:06 PMAlice GoldbergPhilosophy and math masterrace.Oct 11, 2018, 10:10 PMArne TorbkornssonHehOct 11, 2018, 10:42 PMGreg Woodburycivilization is due to astronomy and mathematics.Oct 11, 2018, 11:48 PMCurt Doolittlecivilization is due to law. math and writing evolved from governing cities (markets). it’s more accurate to say that math extended our perceptions above and below human scale.Oct 12, 2018, 4:32 AMGreg WoodburyCurt Doolittle there was nothing in the market before astronomy which lead to agricultureOct 12, 2018, 4:35 AMGreg Woodburyastronomy required geometry and arithmeticOct 12, 2018, 4:36 AMGreg WoodburyAstronomy was applied to agriculture vis religion. It was not law but belief.Oct 12, 2018, 4:37 AMGreg Woodburycities come laterOct 12, 2018, 4:40 AMGreg WoodburysorryOct 12, 2018, 4:40 AMCurt DoolittleUm. I have a pretty good understanding of the history of mathematics, and counting existed, there is no evidence that I know of where arithmetic existed prior to inventories, and none where geometry existed prior to sumer. I think you might mean the development of calendars and astrology? Not math and astronomy?Oct 12, 2018, 4:49 AMCurt Doolittlealthough yes, I’d agree that the primitive people’s work is categorized as astronomy as well. so I’d agree with that. Math tho?Oct 12, 2018, 4:51 AMGuillermo CammareriJulioOct 12, 2018, 5:18 AMRobert TownsendCurt Doolittle thinks psychology is worthless but has his own rather useless meanderings on this subject matterOct 12, 2018, 5:28 AMBen FrayleUnderstanding the seasons does not require detailed knowledge of astronomy.Oct 12, 2018, 5:41 AMAndy UjkuGranted it improved my writing skills somewhatOct 12, 2018, 5:57 AMYiannis KontinopoulosOy vey that’s anuddah shoahOct 12, 2018, 6:22 AMRobert TownsendAlso condemning “health professions”

WTFOct 12, 2018, 6:37 AMEric BestRobert Townsend the majority of these health professionals are not going on to medical school but complete a degree that allows them to work as nurses and other medical staff. That is definitely a lower IQ domain. No one is “condemning” nursing and medical support staff, obviously. But it’s hardly necessary or beneficial for these people to take 2 years of liberal arts courses to get into the major courses of a nursing program at a University as part of a 4 year degree.Oct 12, 2018, 6:51 AMRobert Townsend>No one is condemning

Refer to OPOct 12, 2018, 6:52 AMPaul BardMiddleOct 12, 2018, 7:06 AMPaul BardBrace yourselves for the ad Homs gents lolOct 12, 2018, 7:06 AMGreg WoodburyBen Frayle I think it does. We take it for granted because we are told what day it is. Advanced astronomy, which IS the calendar, is a prerequisite for a basic ability to predict the seasons and have agricultural civilisation. That’s where all religion originated – the worship of the gods in the heavens leads to survival.Oct 12, 2018, 8:29 AMBen FrayleYou don’t have to ‘predict’ the seasons. You have 3 months or so of one then the next. The stars don’t play a role.Oct 12, 2018, 8:31 AMGreg WoodburyCurt Doolittle in order to create a coherent picture of the heavens they had to use math. We might call it numerology. 360 degrees in a circle and app 360 days in a year etc. 360 is preferable to the more accurate number due to its many factors.Oct 12, 2018, 8:32 AMGreg WoodburyBen Frayle but they didn’t know which season they were in… put yourself in their shoes.Oct 12, 2018, 8:33 AMGreg WoodburyBen Frayle some counted moons to survive but that would lead to famine imo because the moon does not track the reasons. The sun does. So they had to do better than that which means pretty complex astronomyOct 12, 2018, 8:34 AMGreg WoodburyBen Frayle the zodiac is old and found in many culturesOct 12, 2018, 8:35 AMBen FrayleIt’s getting colder. We better stop planting crops and eat the food we have stored. It’s getting warmer. We better start planting crops and saving up food.Oct 12, 2018, 8:36 AMGreg WoodburyBen Frayle possibly but I think more precision is required… anyway if you look at ancient cultures with Agraculture the top dog is the astronomer ie the priestOct 12, 2018, 8:38 AMBen FrayleThis required cities with grain stores where they had to start keeping track of who contributed what. Agriculture came first, agronomy later.Oct 12, 2018, 8:39 AMGreg WoodburyBen Frayle “it’s getting warmer” that’s astronomy in its first steps. Next the sun is highly in the sky, the days are longer… a bit more of that before u can produce serious food that u can call civilisedOct 12, 2018, 8:42 AMBen FrayleA blind person could use the same methods.Oct 12, 2018, 8:42 AMGreg WoodburyBen Frayle it wouldn’t work everyone would stave imo. First astronomy then religion then civilisation with massive crops thanks to the godsOct 12, 2018, 8:44 AMBen FrayleThere are several logical flaws in your reasoning. Astronomy requires people to be in one place and have the time and resources to study. This requires agriculture to begin with. Everyone did not starve before agriculture nor in primitive agricultural societies. Nomadic societies (i.e. Aborigines) had workable astronomy for navigating their way around the countryside. Organised religion does not evolve until civilization (cities). Cities do not/cannot occur until agriculture is established. Astronomy is a tool of the priesthood.Oct 12, 2018, 8:50 AMCurt DoolittleIn any event, civilization = cities = weights and measures, counting, writing, contract, law.Oct 12, 2018, 9:03 AMGreg Woodburyastronomy and religion are the same thing. Without astronomy any attempt at agriculture would lead to straight up starvation and death imo. Hense the absolute worship of the gods in the heavensOct 12, 2018, 9:03 AMBen FrayleMost Gods back in those days lived either on top of mountains or somewhere underground.Oct 12, 2018, 10:28 AMMichael WolfeI question this graph in so many ways. (1) First of all the source. The author Randy Olson is a statistician, but I went to the other websites as alleged “sources”: I found no such information in the first, and the second doesn’t exist. (2) How was IQ determined? Was everyone tested in the same way? And what percent of each major was tested? The classic IQ test is a limited measure of intelligence. (3) How good is the correlation? No R-squared value is given. I note that some majors on the right side have higher “IQ” but are unlabeled by the author. (4) This graph is clearly not talking about the intelligence of people in different majors, but the intelligence of women. The x-axis is % female majors. As far as I can tell the author either made up this data or was sloppy in obtaining it, and is trying to say that the more women in a major, the less intelligent the students are.Oct 12, 2018, 10:29 AMJennifer DeanIncreasing the number who go to college promotes debt slavery, dependency and consumption rather than enabling young people to become self-reliant producersOct 12, 2018, 11:32 AMJames VickersThe average individual can increase their intelligence, and their IQ.Oct 12, 2018, 11:56 AMJames VickersThis is why a platform that enables comments linking back to the source data would be so useful.Oct 12, 2018, 11:59 AMCurt DoolittleAnything I post is rock solid unless it’s a joke. Do your research. I posted this graph as a reminder. This is from an oft cited paper. all papers that address this issue produce similar results.

Don’t waste my time with opinion in the absence of data.Oct 12, 2018, 12:06 PMMichael WolfeCurt Doolittle : what paper?Don’t waste my time with unverifiable “data”.Oct 12, 2018, 12:13 PMCurt DoolittleIntelligence tests seek to produce rankings by measuring different capacities, and producing a score that shows one’s relation to peers. One’s relation to peers

Intelligence constantly changes. If you use it you will generally increase a bit over time, and you will rarely lose more than 5 points.

However, in all cases we are limited in cognitive ability, but we can increase cognitive functionality, and we can increase our knowledge as a substitute for cognitive ability and functionality.

IQ as a general measure of the rate at which people learn does not change. So a person higher on the spectrum requires far less information to form a connection than those lower on the spectrum. And people very low on the spectrum (especially below 85) can only be taught rudimentary skills.

So we see DEMONSTRATED intelligence (function) and INTELLIGENCE proper (capacity). You cannot really change your intelligence per se by very much, but you can change your demonstrated intelligence meaningfully. Probably not enough to change your socio-economic class. But enough to make a difference within your socio-economic class.

So like anything else, you can make yourself more physically, emotionally, and mentally, and informationaly fit.

But did you change your biology? No.Oct 12, 2018, 12:20 PMCurt DoolittleThe fact that the source is included in the diagram is an intelligence test that you just failed.Oct 12, 2018, 12:21 PMMichael WolfeCurt Doolittle i said i looked up those sources, and they dont verify your graph. Read what i wrote. Done with this “discussion” now.Oct 12, 2018, 12:25 PMSam Johnsrarely more than 5 pointsOct 12, 2018, 12:45 PMCurt DoolittleThere are five different measures we use to answer this question:

1) the iq of high school students applying for university (we have their iq scores from standardized tests)

2) the sat scores of college students by major

3) the gre scores of grad students by major

4) the long term tracking of students from high school to life.

5) the lifetime performance of all degree holders by socio economic status.

Most of these tests show volatility because 1) weschler is the best measure but only available in high school students, 2) mathematics appears to be the best functional test of intelligence at the high end, and ‘verbal ability’ was added to raise the measure of girls/women on tests, 3) the personality trait ‘industriousness’ is so influential on performance 4) sat scores test education, gre scores select upward, 5) colleges and universities vary vastly in the capability of students they attract and the difficulty of the major they provide. 6) smaller numbers of men go to college and tend to have higher abilities, and larger numbers of women go to college regardless of their abilities. 7) girls mature much earlier, and boys much later, so IQ stabilizes in adulthood (and any advances evaporate), and we have no means of IQ testing after 23 when this stabilization occurs other than lifetime performance.

The numbers in the the OP reflect an effect which is well understood in the data: more women go to college than men by far now, and that lowers the score of women to the median because of regression to the mean at scale.

Moreover, some degrees have a negative impact on lifetime earnings (social work, sociology, education).

This is important for the simple reason that most published proxies for intelligence of gender and occupation use the number of degrees independent of major as a proxy for IQ which tends to vastly overstate or understand the biological intelligence, functional intelligence, of demographic areas.

None of which is complicated. But the reminder needs to be out there constantly that this is how aggregates are produced.Oct 12, 2018, 12:46 PMCurt DoolittleMichael Wolfe btw, You are lying. 1) the link goes directly to the site. 2) Searching by the title provides the author’s paper and his follow up comments on the first page of the results.3) this graph is in the page on his web site. 4) it’s discussed hundreds of times in the first few pages of search results.

So not only are you intellectually questionable, limited in ability, but you’re dishonest.Oct 12, 2018, 12:49 PMMichael WolfeCurt Doolittle i could not click on the links in your graph (there is no hyperlink). I had to type them in. And I described what I found. I’m not going to get into a namecalling back and forth with you.Oct 12, 2018, 12:55 PMCurt DoolittleYou come to my page, and you don’t know anything about me or my work, or what arguments I make and you open your mouth.

My message, is that it’s very questionable why we pay four year degrees in great debt for degrees outside of STEM+L.

This is not a unique claim. The claim is that colleges filter out those lacking industriousness and discipline, but for most disciplines teach nothing of durable value in the work force.Oct 12, 2018, 1:01 PMMichael WolfeCurt Doolittle my apologies. I thought i was replying to a FB friend who shared your post. I leave you to your echo chamber.Oct 12, 2018, 1:06 PMCurt DoolittleApology for your self righteous assumptions accepted. 😉 lolOct 12, 2018, 1:11 PMSteve Slonkylmfao I couldn’t click the links on a jpeg so the data don’t existOct 12, 2018, 1:23 PMSteve Slonkybtw the links work just fine

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_318.30.aspOct 12, 2018, 1:33 PMMichael WolfeSteve Slonky i said i tried to type them in. I typed edu instead of ed, which is why it didnt come up for me. All that table says is the number of degrees conferred in different fields. Just saying.Oct 12, 2018, 1:51 PMSteve SlonkyProbably why there are multiple sources. Just saying.Oct 12, 2018, 2:06 PMVengefül BobmoranThat’s a weird way of saying that Women produce pseudoscience, sophims, and religion. 😉Oct 12, 2018, 4:52 PMCorey OvertonIQ is not the only means of measuring intelligence.Oct 12, 2018, 5:51 PMCurt DoolittleUm. IQ tests consists of a general survey of abilities, but the near universal consensus is that not matter what we do they scale in proportion to one another. We tend to group them into two capabilities of math(patterns of existential relations) and language (patterns of sympathetic relations). But there are something like 80 capabilities that scale together. With the female mind vs the male mind physically different and resulting in these two specializations.Oct 12, 2018, 5:54 PMOllie ThorntonYou could have an IQ of 200 and be a dustman, it doesn’t make being a dustman the most intelligent career choice even if the most intelligent person does it.Oct 12, 2018, 7:21 PMAnna SmithI assume they’ve “adjusted” for race, and even gender too perhaps.Oct 12, 2018, 7:39 PMJai NayakMichael Wolfe: Had the same questions as you. Found a different link where the statistician has explained how the graph was plotted, including your question about IQ. From SAT scores, it seems. http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/Oct 12, 2018, 8:32 PMMichael WolfeJai Nayak this is very interesting and helpful. Thanks!Oct 12, 2018, 8:44 PMIrene Ivanajgetting into an analytic philosophy department gets you a homage mini fedoraOct 12, 2018, 11:04 PMArathi CherianIf you use the same data and mark it in terms of EQ instead of IQ, you will get the total opposite graph.

The relevance of IQ in predicting usefulness for the human race, has been squashed in a number of studies. Not saying EQ is a perfect determinant either but it is definitely more nuanced and complex than IQ, which is really a matter of linear processing.

It is well known that women are drawn to fields that involve nurturing and care-giving in some form or the other.

The real travesty here is how the underlying attitude is to belittle women’s contributions, their natural strengths etc because the kind of abilities they have and contributions they make are not easy to calculate or gauge. Or put a price on.Oct 13, 2018, 12:10 AMGreg WoodburyBen Frayle not for agricultural societies who did well at it. The ultimate god was the sun who is the source of energy. Then the other heavenly bodies who also affect agriculture (moon = tides etc). I’ve noticed successful agricultural cultures focus on astronomy in their religion.Oct 13, 2018, 12:41 AMNathan MauneyGreg Woodbury I just took a course of anthropology and the consensus is that agriculture started because of population growth in hunter gatherer societies, which led to the expanse of tribes and the development of agriculture to sustain the larger population. Then social inequality and hierarchies, the first laws, and astronomy became part of the ritualistic culturesOct 13, 2018, 2:26 AMGreg WoodburyNathan Mauney get your money backOct 13, 2018, 3:10 AMNathan MauneyGreg Woodbury lol it wasn’t my first buddy. I’ve taken several and do my own research. If you look closely now I said “the consensus”, meaning that’s what’s agreed upon by academia. It’s not necessarily the truth. I’m open to all sorts of theories about the inception of mankind, and actually even in the modern consensus there’s a lot of flexibility and unknownsOct 13, 2018, 3:13 AMGreg WoodburyNathan Mauney the modern consensus is that civilisation started how long ago?Oct 13, 2018, 3:22 AMNathan MauneyGreg Woodbury they estimate around 9,000 bc but this is hazy because we continue to find older features. There are lots of archaeological sites that beg an earlier date, and I would probably guess weve either been around a lot longer or been through civilization before this.Oct 13, 2018, 3:24 AMGreg WoodburyNathan Mauney I think it’s older. Anyway, in your description you say that the population got too large FIRST. Then they developed agriculture. A far more plausible account is that agriculture lead to plentiful food THEN the population grew.

Agriculture is not caused by a large populations. A large population is caused by agriculture.Oct 13, 2018, 3:34 AMGreg WoodburyThe first people to develop viable agriculture spread the knowledge to other cultures and taught them their astrological religions as well. That’s the way I see it and I realise academics are resisting that obvious account for some strange reasons.Oct 13, 2018, 3:37 AMBen FrayleThat is one view (roughly speaking) that agriculture spread. The other is that it developed independantly in different areas as humans developed as an obvious evolutionary juncture.Oct 13, 2018, 3:49 AMJim LeisGreg Woodbury This. Is there even an advanced culture that didn’t have this type of priest? Thought experiment : Does an ancient culture’s astronomy priest sophistication signal sophistication?

Certainly third world cultures I can think of have priests who are NOTOct 13, 2018, 7:41 AMBen FrayleA ‘priest’ is a professional who does nothing else but ‘priest’ and who is supported by the rest of the community. Not a part-time medicine man or wise woman.Oct 13, 2018, 7:48 AMAbderrahman Zaatriأنس برادة ماذا نستنتج؟ ههههOct 13, 2018, 8:39 AMأنس برادةلا تتزوج طبيبة 😂😂 و شوف شي مهندسة أو فيزيائيةOct 13, 2018, 8:51 AMAbderrahman Zaatriأنس برادةOct 13, 2018, 9:03 AMأنس برادةAbderrahman Zaatri تمام ، نفس الفكرة ..لا يزداد كثيرا .. و إذا زاد لا يزيد عن 5 نقطOct 13, 2018, 9:14 AMCurt Doolittle^hence why they are all liars. ;)Oct 13, 2018, 10:28 AMOllie ThorntonEthan Trice it’s an exaggeration but this graph only to do with graduates and not people who specifically go into the related field (which the vast majority of medical degree students do, whilst history students do not)Oct 13, 2018, 2:43 PMTrevor Phillipsso…… the calendar is advanced astronomy, which was required for surplus.

so every farmer was educated in advanced astronomy? or was there some type of collective administrative power that could take the product of one advanced astronomer and facilitate it’s adoption throughout the collective. with law. and writing.Oct 13, 2018, 9:43 PMTrevor Phillipskinda sounds like civilization came firstOct 13, 2018, 9:43 PMGreg WoodburyTrevor Phillips No there was no need for any of that to spread the information. The knowledge was spread through stories that personified the visible objects in the sky. In these stories, each object in the sky was given a persona. They were (are) all gods. The stories about the gods in heaven (sky) acted as mnemonics that allowed people to know exactly when important calendar dates came up. Astrological alignments mark important times in the agricultural calendar. It was only through religion that the ability to identify these calendar markers was developed and spread to all members of society. The people with the stories that lead to the optimum timings would outcompete others with more surplus and population growth. In the end you have a religion that tells all of it’s followers what to do to get the optimum harvest.Oct 14, 2018, 3:18 AMBen FrayleSort of like the pre-history matrix?Oct 14, 2018, 3:21 AMChris PustekuchenThis is a very interesting relationship. It must be read with care though. We find that technical majors attract a greater share of the most gifted students. And those students majoring in technical fields turn out to be predominantly male. The measure of intelligence chosen is the IQ test, that is a measure of logical apprehension. Incidentally it is precisely logic that one works with in philosophy, mathematics, computer science or physics. So in a way that shouldn’t come as a surprise. Secondly, it is also well documented from the PISA test for example that 15-year old boys typically outperform 15-year old girls in mathematics, while 15-year girls outperform 15-year old boys in reading comprehension. The latter ability is of lesser importance in the forementioned subjects and is not of much interest to the IQ test. Speaking of logic, can we draw the implication that males across the board have a higher logical ability than females. In short, the answer is no. The data is suggestive of such relationship but in fact it is only a subset of the population, in example those pursuing a college degree in the first place. It could well be that both males and females have the same expected logical ability, though male’s ability is distributed with greater variance. Thus you’ll find more male geniuses as well as more male morons.Lastly, I would like to caution when it comes to ranking specialities according to their value to society. Modern societies are distinguished by a division of labour. We need people who crack problems, undoubtedly. Someone ought to secure our bank accounts, secure nucelar power plants or predict the weather. But someone should also be able to see a person in distress over a failed marriage, help a mother give birth in harmony, or motivate our youngsters that can’t see the point of learning another language or solving algebraic equations. Societies dwell when we recognise the various talents each of us can bring to the table. And few of us have been blessed with the ability of being as brilliant as a mathematician, as patient as an educator and as altruistic and empathetic as a health professional. (As a sidenote, it’s disturbing to see that physicists are to be more intelligent than mathematicians. That surely must be a measurement error.)Oct 14, 2018, 9:29 AMOllie ThorntonEthan Trice “The rest is not education. It’s pseudoscience, sophims, and religion.” He’s implying that history, psychology and education aren’t actual fields. Although funnily enough he’s stupid by his own logic:Oct 14, 2018, 1:12 PMإبراهيم العقيدHoussein Ben BdiraFeb 28, 2019, 4:32 PMMark DossIs the German system best?Feb 28, 2019, 6:21 PMSpencer GriffinI’m curious. This is all undergraduate degrees, right? Has to be.Mar 2, 2019, 7:25 AMJulian von Saucken-SternbergsourceMar 3, 2019, 4:23 PMAccording to this graph, the IQ for university degree is 120+. Which means roughly 10% of the population is capable of a university degree in a calculable field.

The rest is not education. It’s pseudoscience, sophims, and religion.