(a) IQ measures what researchers claim (b) it measures ‘g’ or the biological adaptivity of the brain and as universal scale of all cognitive traits (c) you are just denying that it doesn’t (d) there is no evidence it doesn’t (e) you’re lying by not defining the term (handwaving)
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-13 20:25:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338218553992941568
Reply addressees: @theodore_nit
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338217428308926464
Then you must define intelligence. At present we define intelligence by the measure of IQ. (g). We separate (g) from demonstrated intelligence.
So no it’s not a narrative. it’s a fact.
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-13 20:04:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338213164828254208
Reply addressees: @theodore_nit
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338212463754534916
IQ measures one’s relative position to others at a given age at a given time in tests of a suite of cognitive ability, that measure rate of adaptivity. The fact that you deny the rather obvious, and don’t understand the data, and are quoting pop pseudoscience is another measure.
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-13 19:40:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338207205343043584
Reply addressees: @theodore_nit
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338205861601308673
That’s not an argument. IQ measures what it claims to. The method of maintaining year to year and generation to generation commensurability requires continuous iterative tests. Flynn effect is over. We’re getting ignorant from education and dumber from immigration and sortition.
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-13 19:38:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338206650314928133
Reply addressees: @theodore_nit
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338205861601308673
You can say that, but as those of us that specialize in debunking folks like you, most IQ researchers don’t make that claim. They make few claims, other than to measure what they measure. IQ is the least controversal measure in psychology, and stereotypes in psychology.
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-13 19:35:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338205992740401156
Reply addressees: @theodore_nit
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338204571781525504
Your (nonsense) argument (following taleb) is that wealth is a measure of intelligence. Advantageous traits, intelligence, personality, phenotypic, and morphological all influence your market value. IQ matters by standard deviation A LOT.
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-13 19:18:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338201671160172545
Reply addressees: @theodore_nit
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338199388842287105
That’s a lie right? It measures what we claim it measures: the general velocity of adaptability of the brain by adversarial competition with peers. That we can increase that predictability by adding the remaining personality traits (particularly conscientiousness) doesn’t matter.
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-13 19:16:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338201018996322306
Reply addressees: @theodore_nit
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338199388842287105
That’s not what this graph says as every critic of taleb including myself has argued. It says that conscientiousness is more important for wealth at any point in the spectrum; that opportunities for additional income at margins are limited; and that there’s minimum marketable IQ.
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-13 18:59:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338196929570856963
Reply addressees: @theodore_nit
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338194982994399232
Alienation. Competition. Rejection. Confrontation. … Adaptation. We state this in the via positive as belonging, place, safety, security.
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-13 18:41:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338192336648605700
Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338191567845285888
You are just your brain. All sentient, mindful, and consciousness constructs MUST have an inner experience.
I’m sometimes frustrated with Robert Kuhn’s accommodation of the pseudoscience we call philosophy …
Source date (UTC): 2020-12-13 18:23:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338187742119858178
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338187739951476740
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
And if you don’t know both neuroscience and AI, and don’t have a sufficient understanding of the limits of mathematics, the limits of quantum mechanics, then you’re functionally illiterate. I can explain the experience of consiousness to anyone educated in the sciences.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1338187739951476740