If you wanna play the IQ game.
Ignoring the loaded question…
“Just a glance at these bright high-achievers—men and women who have made their mark in an array of fields—tells us that intelligence is complex and multi-dimensional. Comparing one to the other is like comparing apples and oranges.”
And five points or whatever else group-level is nothing in statistics.
Literally, no-thing, especially when you’re trying to apply it to individuals.
How do they teach you social science stats theory in America?
There’s a list of things you can’t do with every construct.
Like how you can’t apply the current tests to historical figures. It just doesn’t work. They try but the margin of error is larger.
It’s like saying which tree is better, an oak or a palm?
Cats or dogs?
Red or blue?
Old flag or new flag?
It’s a matter of taste and you know either side debating tends to want a reason to feel superior without actually doing anything. This merits disdain.
The ignorance of many supposedly educated white American men denying historical female achievement against all odds (legal bans, witch convictions etc.) makes it worse for people who learnt history under a decent education system. This isn’t anything to do with non-IQ ‘genius’ – real world accomplishment, creativity. The IQ test doesn’t measure creativity but there’s a little correlation. Any more and Asians wouldn’t score a little higher. The worst mislabelling is ‘genius’ on an IQ sheet – it’s even below gifted! That isn’t the cultural use at all! But academics want to posture so they stole the term that retains its original and ancient meanings. There’s a measurement error when it becomes academic dick-measuring.
After about 170, it becomes blurry for adults and you must rely on IRL achievements.
It’s a deviation from the mean, from about 130 (2SD), it practically means an exponential curve that nobody is quite sure how to distinguish. There are specialist tests but experts differ on whether that measures ‘g’, the same, or if it’s something entirely different.
The only valid, Binet test wasn’t oriented to find ‘genius’ so the fact it cannot isn’t a weakness.
It was designed to find 1. retardation 2. in children to 3. help them 4. at school 5. to cope 6. with the work.
Applying it elsewhere is a major form of credentialism. Like knowing pi to X digits or collecting masters degrees.
If you could use it, you would.
This is Marilyn at her peak, btw.
Reminds me of Jennifer Connolly here.
Remember how I mentioned looks correlate to real intelligence?
Genetic load, QED, imho.
Anyone who can parse the data would know racial differences are huge, sex differences in this arena are minor and trivial, if you just sum the area under the curve… women win.
Does it matter? Still no.
If your brains are in your penis, you need to read a book.
inb4 the Guinness World Records people are ruthless on anything numbers, they have higher standards than any University, so her record was nothing to sneer at.
“Women are crazy” pushers – perhaps you’re too dumb to understand us? Nor take two minutes to listen.