Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/1/13 12:40 AM, thatkidkenji wrote:

At 12/1/13 12:28 AM, AxTekk wrote:

Yeah, the difference between women with financial incentives and without financial incentives

You're really going to choose to read it like that?

Lol, the effect was FOUR TIMES more pronounced in men, does that seem statistically insignificant?

At 12/1/13 12:40 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:

Here are some hilarity nuggets for anyone reading:

The sole fact that you believe IQ to be a good measurement of human capabalities is the proof of that.

Yes, of course, IQ is just "made up" and meaningless lol.

Your stupid "everything is measurable with numbers hur dur" approach and the way you use google images as "demonstrations" of your points is a stunning proof of your intellectual limitations.

At least I can spell "ability".

You believe that an empirical method based on people's hability to answer to socialy constructed ideals is fascinating. The IQ method evaluates socialy constructed habilities.

Yes, the "social construction" of maths, logic, geometric shapes and spatial reasoning.

What naronick said to you stands.

Given that you can't spell his name, I'm pretty sure you have not understood anything he wrote anyway, you just had the vague idea that by agreeing with someone you thought was smarter than you, you'd also appear smart.

It has failed :,(

But hey, just use pictures of kid books to attack my points. Your ad hominem crap will eventually work.

If you learn one thing and one thing only today, may it be the definition of "ad hominem".

At 12/1/13 12:44 AM, AxTekk wrote:

Oh cool, so you concede that gender discrimination counts for a large part of it?

I don't know if I'd say "large".
By this logic you could accuse the Jews of "keeping non-jews" out of Hollywood since Jews are very highly over-represented in entertainment.

I think it's always an easy go-to solution to just blame whoever is in power of keeping others out rather than wondering if there couldn't be reasons why it's them who are in power in the first place and not others.

As I said, the example of the internet is quite telling as here you have a totally open gender-neutral field for creative types in which men vastly outnumber women, way moreso than in hollywood.

Sadly to create things with computers requires very high cognitive ability, which explains quite well why the 30 richest web entrepreneurs are all men:
http://www.incomediary.com/30-richest-internet-entrepreneurs

At 12/1/13 12:57 AM, poxpower wrote: Sadly to create things with computers requires very high cognitive ability

Lmaoooo if you do say so yourself right? Fuck outta here that's the main reason dudes are willing to stay up typing code.

At 12/1/13 12:57 AM, poxpower wrote: Yes, of course, IQ is just "made up" and meaningless lol.

Do you even know what IQ is?

At least I can spell "ability".

Oh wow! Pathetic!

Yes, the "social construction" of maths, logic, geometric shapes and spatial reasoning.

These are thought in school, fucktard. And not only this, but these qualities are subjectively chosen by those who make up these tests. They do not evaluate intelligence, they evalutate THIS kind of intelligence. And it isn't empirical in anyway.

Given that you can't spell his name, I'm pretty sure you have not understood anything he wrote anyway, you just had the vague idea that by agreeing with someone you thought was smarter than you, you'd also appear smart.

What kind of loser are you? You just flatout reject my entire post because I make typos? What a moron.

You have no kind of ability to question your own stubborn convictions. You are stuck up in your world, believing that these things you value are what makes "objective intelligence". If you believe that you can just throw in empirical studies without having any kind of normative reasoning, and just making shit up as you go to interpret these numbers, you are just proving again that you don't know shit about how any and all social sciences work.

But please, if you don't have any kind of proper normative analysis to offer to counter my post, just keep correcting my typos.

At 12/1/13 12:45 AM, AxTekk wrote:

At 12/1/13 12:40 AM, thatkidkenji wrote:

At 12/1/13 12:28 AM, AxTekk wrote:

Yeah, the difference between women with financial incentives and without financial incentives

You're really going to choose to read it like that?

Lol, the effect was FOUR TIMES more pronounced in men, does that seem statistically insignificant?

In comparison to women or in comparison to how they were performing under the stereotype threat?
I don't see anything in the graph or passages that support what you're saying.

At 12/1/13 01:00 AM, AxTekk wrote:

At 12/1/13 12:57 AM, poxpower wrote: Sadly to create things with computers requires very high cognitive ability

Lmaoooo if you do say so yourself right? Fuck outta here that's the main reason dudes are willing to stay up typing code.

It's not a particularly big secret that you need to be very smart to code well.
Again, ignored everything else I said for some reason, choosing only to focus on one line and reply in an ambiguous fashion not pertaining to the topic.

I mean, I can just treat you like Heavenduff if you want.

At 12/1/13 01:08 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:

Yes, the "social construction" of maths, logic, geometric shapes and spatial reasoning.

These are thought in school, fucktard.

Yes, as well as other socially constructed things like history, geological formations, the strength of gravity and the boiling point of water, which are all social inventions as we know.

And not only this, but these qualities are subjectively chosen by those who make up these tests.

No, not "subjectively".
Not that it matters a whole lot because to the surprise of no one, smart people do well on just about any kind of intelligence test while stupid people don't.

You'd be hard-pressed to design a written test where astrophysicists do bad and garbage men do really well.

At 12/1/13 01:45 AM, poxpower wrote: Yes, as well as other socially constructed things like history, geological formations, the strength of gravity and the boiling point of water, which are all social inventions as we know.

Son, social sciences are far more complex than natural sciences. They cannot be calculated as easily as you pretend em to be. You can't write a simple fucking formula explaining how individuals exposed to racial discrimination will develop their subjective perceptions of interracial violence, for example. That's far more complex than the "boiling point of water", and so is intelligence. You have no kind of normative work to back your definition of intelligence that you just assume to be right by default. Please have a normative definition of intelligence on which to construct your analysis of empirical data.

No, not "subjectively".
Not that it matters a whole lot because to the surprise of no one, smart people do well on just about any kind of intelligence test while stupid people don't.

But to suggest that this is somehow linked to biological differences like you always do when comparing men and women just shows how little reflection you've had on just why would women get lower results then men. You just always ignore anyone who explains you how social environnements, economical class and gender constructs could affect the results. Just tell me what the fuck would you do if I simply said "Girls get higher grades then boys in high school, so they are more intelligent because of this."?

You'd be hard-pressed to design a written test where astrophysicists do bad and garbage men do really well.

That's because your IQ test evaluates scientifical skills. Spatial intelligence, mathemacial reasoning, etc. These are scientifical skills. And apparently, the scientists who make up these tests seems to believe that scientifical skills are what makes people intelligent. Strange coincidence, right?

At 12/1/13 01:45 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/1/13 01:00 AM, AxTekk wrote:

At 12/1/13 12:57 AM, poxpower wrote: Sadly to create things with computers requires very high cognitive ability

Lmaoooo if you do say so yourself right? Fuck outta here that's the main reason dudes are willing to stay up typing code.

It's not a particularly big secret that you need to be very smart to code well.
Again, ignored everything else I said for some reason, choosing only to focus on one line and reply in an ambiguous fashion not pertaining to the topic.

Yeah, only bit I really care about atm. I mean, what is this, peer review?

And coding well does take smarts, but not necessarily smarts as represented by IQ (you think IQ's way more general than it is). Plus it's pretty light on a lot of cognitive aspects compared to say, medicine or law.

At 12/1/13 01:39 AM, thatkidkenji wrote:

At 12/1/13 12:45 AM, AxTekk wrote: Lol, the effect was FOUR TIMES more pronounced in men, does that seem statistically insignificant?

In comparison to women or in comparison to how they were performing under the stereotype threat?
I don't see anything in the graph or passages that support what you're saying.

Bro, are you numerate? The men scored better when incentivised compared to baseline and stereotype threat, and the difference was more quadruply noteworthy than in women.

At 11/30/13 02:59 AM, thatkidkenji wrote:

BTW you gotten any digits recently?

At 12/1/13 01:55 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:

They cannot be calculated as easily as you pretend em to be.

I don't pretend it's easy.

You have no kind of normative work to back your definition of intelligence that you just assume to be right by default.

First of all, I haven't defined intelligence. I don't think anyone agrees on any one definition of intelligence anyway but what is clear is that the same groups / kinds of people tend to do well on all intelligence tests.

But to suggest that this is somehow linked to biological differences like you always do when comparing men and women just shows how little reflection you've had on just why would women get lower results then men.

I don't think mainstream psychology or biology today denies there's cognitive / behavioural differences in genders that are genetic.
You'd be sitting out there on the fringes if you denied there is and it's all a socially constructed lie.

Just tell me what the fuck would you do if I simply said "Girls get higher grades then boys in high school, so they are more intelligent because of this."?

This is not even close to what I'm saying so yah.

That's because your IQ test evaluates scientifical skills.

Something like Raven's progressive matrices or that test where you just flip 3D objects in your mind have nothing to do with "scientifical" skills or knowledge of any kind

It's pattern recognition that doesn't even require basic maths skill or being literate.

But lo and behold, people who score highly on those tests are the same people who'd be called "intelligent" by their peers and who did well in school.

Spatial intelligence, mathemacial reasoning, etc. These are scientifical skills. And apparently, the scientists who make up these tests seems to believe that scientifical skills are what makes people intelligent. Strange coincidence, right?

Social scientists have been painstakingly working for decades trying to come up with fair intelligence tests. There's not some evil cabal of astrophysicists making up tests where they score really high so they can feel superior.

At 12/1/13 02:12 AM, Entice wrote:

At 11/30/13 02:59 AM, thatkidkenji wrote:

BTW you gotten any digits recently?

If I wanted to go on a date with a girl I would find one a dating website instead of picking her up off the street.
And even them I'm still mindful of basic power dynamics and would end the date on "hit me up whenever" so that she is in control.

At 12/1/13 02:02 AM, AxTekk wrote:

Yeah, only bit I really care about atm. I mean, what is this, peer review?

You can look at this list of occupations by IQ:
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx
http://anepigone.blogspot.ca/2011/01/average-iq-by-occupation.html

Or this guy who cites a lot of studies relating programming skill to intelligence:
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/155523/how-is-programming-affected-by-spatial-aptitude

And coding well does take smarts, but not necessarily smarts as represented by IQ (you think IQ's way more general than it is). Plus it's pretty light on a lot of cognitive aspects compared to say, medicine or law.

Programming is very broad but I'd wager that the best programmers of any given company ( i.e. the ones who write the innovative money-making code ) have IQs in the 130-140s EASY.

Programming definitely seems like a field where there is no limit to how high intelligence will help you, whereas in medicine there's probably fairly diminishing returns when you get in the 120s ( but that's just guessing ). In a perfectly fair world, I could easily imagine a large number of women in the top spots of medicine or law, but never in programming.

To code something innovative requires massive amounts of cognitive ability, creative thinking, planning, math and logic. There are problems you will have to tackle that can only be solved with a certain level of extremely high intelligence.

These are the same kinds of people who get into Chess clubs, basically. You'll notice that almost all the top 100 best chess players in the world are men: http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml

This is where men really outshine women the ability to solve logic puzzle of high complexity with high speed.

At 12/1/13 01:29 AM, Raab wrote: Its hard to direct films from the kitchen.

hilarious

At 12/1/13 02:50 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/1/13 02:02 AM, AxTekk wrote:

Yeah, only bit I really care about atm. I mean, what is this, peer review?

You can look at this list of occupations by IQ:
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx
http://anepigone.blogspot.ca/2011/01/average-iq-by-occupation.html

None of these lists put computer related jobs beyond the 120s. Yeah, it's a shitty sample, yeah maybe none of these guys can code. But I seriously doubt IQ has as strong as an effect as you think, or at least that you continue to get serious gains beyond the 120s. I mean, the 150s/ 60s I know are all humanities, I'm the only one doing an even slightly numbersy degree that I know. I know a shit load of gifted/ bottom end MENSAn comp-sci dudes, so I'm inclined to think you just appreciate the subtleties of your work more than say, the IQ demands of history or theology.

Programming definitely seems like a field where there is no limit to how high intelligence will help you, whereas in medicine there's probably fairly diminishing returns when you get in the 120s ( but that's just guessing ). In a perfectly fair world, I could easily imagine a large number of women in the top spots of medicine or law, but never in programming.

I take issue with that actually - I think the minimum for a pro understanding of medicine demands higher IQ than the minimum for a pro understanding of programming (broad as it is). Given, it requires less fluid intelligence, but the sheer amount of stuff you have to understand perfectly and recall at a moments notice... Guys're mental. So it's interesting that women outnumber men in the profession (at least over here).

This is where men really outshine women the ability to solve logic puzzle of high complexity with high speed.

And little context. That bit's crucial. You get more intelligent-aspergers-ish geniuses who're male than female, the ones who're total shit with complex social stuff and linguistics but can solve a rubix cube in seconds.

I almost think that's the most useless kind of genius though.

Oh and fun fact, Shakira's apparently a 140.

Quote related:

"White men are funny. Please know I love them. Both white men and women have slept in my bed and they're all lovely. But what amazes me is how much of our population does not see that most mainstream American media thoroughly explores the white male psyche: Indiana Jones, Little Miss Sunshine, Austin Powers, Harry Potter, Sideways, Indecent Proposal, 500 Days of Summer, Birth of a Nation...I love all of those movies. I don't feel oppressed by them as much as I find more of the same type of movies uninteresting. It always cracks me up when this is brought up in dialogue and you hear the war cry of "reverse racism!" I think it freaks some people out when they realize white men are no longer the center of the Universe and that many other varied, full, vibrant ways-of-being, living, thinking and loving exist outside of the narrow slice represented in the mainstream movies. It's also a bummer though, because it perpetuates a Zero-sum idea that voicing one experience automatically negates the others. Just because there are resources (film festivals, grants, etc) focused on developing cinematic voices outside of the straight-white-male paradigm doesn't mean there should be less of the straight-white-man (which has been so generously covered in the mainstream) just more that are not the straight-white-male. Ideally, all voices can co-exist in media. The corollary is since there is such a rich cinematic straight-white-man tradition, much of the thinking out there about how films should be constructed is from that perspective. So if you are trying to develop your own voice, remember that the box you may be trying to think outside of is an entrenched, dusty, cement box that existed for way too long. Find creative collegues who are able to think outside of that box as well and play to your ideas. Ultimately, we live in a society that devalues the feminine experience. Not females necessarily, but feminine qualities that exist in men as well. Feminine qualities are often seen as "weak" or "irrelevant." We also live in a society that does not value all the colorful voices out there. It is sad that some folks still see the empowerment of non-white people as "reverse racism." Or, they think Slumdog Millionaire was enough. So my advice for women starting out on this journey is: value yourself. Know you have a right to a seat at this table. Seek out a community that nurtures your unique voice."

At 12/1/13 02:10 AM, AxTekk wrote: the difference was more quadruply noteworthy than in women.

At 12/1/13 03:07 AM, AxTekk wrote:

None of these lists put computer related jobs beyond the 120s.

Remember that these are averages, not excellence.

I take issue with that actually - I think the minimum for a pro understanding of medicine demands higher IQ than the minimum for a pro understanding of programming (broad as it is).

It really depends.
A genius-level programmer is someone like a Good Will Hunting.
Not sure what a genius-level doctor does different. It's hard to gauge what problems in medicine would require a super high IQ to solve whereas in programming the complexity is infinite.

Given, it requires less fluid intelligence, but the sheer amount of stuff you have to understand perfectly and recall at a moments notice... Guys're mental. So it's interesting that women outnumber men in the profession (at least over here).

The cognitive skills associated with medicine/law are closer to memory than problem-solving.
Note also that these are heavily sought-after professions that attract really smart people because of the prestige / money it offers. It's not that it requires you to be that smart to do, it's that they have so many people wanting to do it that they select the very best, so this inflates the average by, probably, a whole lot.

By comparison the average IQ for computer sciences / physics is probably way closer to what it actually required to do these jobs.

It would be very interesting to have IQ data for top phycisists, programmers, lawyers, phycisians etc.

I almost think that's the most useless kind of genius though.

Maybe on a personal level it's not the skill most likely to make you rich or popular but if we were to pick what kind of people we wanted for the human race to advance faster, it's them.

It's not true at all that people with super high IQs are generally socially crippled idiot savants.

Oh and fun fact, Shakira's apparently a 140.

Mensa denies having released this number...

I really don't believe the IQ results of most famous people because it's never sourced it's just some bullshit made-up numbers, especially the ones about famous long-dead scientists / writers/ whatever.

^That is by Rosylyn Rhee
And I did not mean to quote another user

At 12/1/13 03:48 AM, poxpower wrote: Remember that these are averages, not excellence.

It's not the bottom limit either though, and I'm not seeing anything to suggest there are significant gains of anything higher.

It really depends.
A genius-level programmer is someone like a Good Will Hunting.
Not sure what a genius-level doctor does different. It's hard to gauge what problems in medicine would require a super high IQ to solve whereas in programming the complexity is infinite.

Depends what type of intelligence you're talking about I guess. I think medicine would draw on far more types of intellect than programming at least (which only requires one or two kinds of thinking). There's also a stamina thing: Maybe more flex power counts in programming, but to be a doctor you have to maintain a lower flex for like twelve hours a day, five a week. Oh, and if you slip, people die.

This is without touching the stupid-craziness that is brain surgeons. Fuckers couple just about every single type of intelligence.

The cognitive skills associated with medicine/law are closer to memory than problem-solving.

Idk, figuring treatment from diseases from symptoms seems like problem solving, although it's definitely closer to that end of the spectrum. Law is more verbal reasoning, intrapersonal and interpersonal than anything else though (as is my understanding).

Note also that these are heavily sought-after professions that attract really smart people because of the prestige / money it offers. It's not that it requires you to be that smart to do, it's that they have so many people wanting to do it that they select the very best, so this inflates the average by, probably, a whole lot.

Yeah, probably. They're kinda like go-to jobs if you're smart.

Maybe on a personal level it's not the skill most likely to make you rich or popular but if we were to pick what kind of people we wanted for the human race to advance faster, it's them.

It's not true at all that people with super high IQs are generally socially crippled idiot savants.

Well, I mean define super high. I think the ones who aren't idiot savants don't tend to go towards mathsy areas crazy amounts either, because they won't have the same preference for context-less problems.

I also don't think you can advance humanity without liking the humans. Kinda becomes meaningless. I'd rather we get another Jimi Hendrix or another Peter Singer than another Stephen Hawking.

Mensa denies having released this number...

I really don't believe the IQ results of most famous people because it's never sourced it's just some bullshit made-up numbers, especially the ones about famous long-dead scientists / writers/ whatever.

Yeah, I just went to double check and found it sourceless. My bad.

I think I can believe some of the IQ ones where they have credible sources for habits/ chess abilities/ writing drills that evidence high ability, but generally it's just psychometricists trying to get a mention in press.

At 12/1/13 03:48 AM, thatkidkenji wrote: Quote related:

I honestly don't get what you think I don't agree with that's of significance. I agree with all that person said. I think our cultural experience (all of our cultural experiences) will be enriched massively by the free exchange of diverse media that will only become freer.

Maybe men are better at it

At 12/1/13 04:15 AM, AxTekk wrote:

It's not the bottom limit either though, and I'm not seeing anything to suggest there are significant gains of anything higher.

Higher than 110?
There's a fairly huge difference between 110 and 130.
That's the difference between a struggling BA and a PH.D.
For a PHd in physics you're probably looking at 140 on average.
Maybe not so much between 130 and 150, but in physics / maths / computing I would imagine there is.

You can look at what this guy thinks:
http://www.paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html

Notice according to him you can't do a whole lot for the world of science with an IQ under 140.

For instance, the average phd in economics has an IQ of close to 140:
http://mahalanobis.twoday.net/stories/2258008/

This gives you some idea of the level of intelligence required to advance sciences.
There's already a 2:1 disparity of men / women at 130, I have no idea what it is at 140, I think it's close to 9:1.

That's the general level of PHds in sciences, which is different than what you need to practice medicine.

Note that this is just average PhDs, not good or ground-breaking ones.

Sadly there's no data I can find on, say, Nobel laureate IQ scores.
There's just so few people with that level of intelligence and there's such sparse data on this that it's hard to tell.

Well, I mean define super high.

I doubt even people with IQs above 160 are socially maladjusted any moreso than the average 100 IQ nerd.

I also don't think you can advance humanity without liking the humans. Kinda becomes meaningless. I'd rather we get another Jimi Hendrix or another Peter Singer than another Stephen Hawking.

Wow thank God it's not up to you lol.

I think I can believe some of the IQ ones where they have credible sources for habits/ chess abilities/ writing drills that evidence high ability, but generally it's just psychometricists trying to get a mention in press.

There's very few IQ scores for public figures that are public.

At 11/30/13 03:26 AM, thatkidkenji wrote: I wish NG had an Ignore option.

Then go off it.
Also, about the whole women thing... Who the fuck even cares. I wouldn't even care.

At 12/1/13 06:07 AM, Splats wrote:

At 11/30/13 03:26 AM, thatkidkenji wrote: I wish NG had an Ignore option.

Then go off it.
Also, about the whole women thing... Who the fuck even cares. I wouldn't even care.

Apparently lots of people do. I'm sorry we're not hxc and leet like you.

At 12/1/13 02:42 AM, thatkidkenji wrote:

At 12/1/13 02:12 AM, Entice wrote:

At 11/30/13 02:59 AM, thatkidkenji wrote:

BTW you gotten any digits recently?

If I wanted to go on a date with a girl I would find one a dating website instead of picking her up off the street.

Because it's impossible to just meet new people in your social circles, picking up random people on the street and online dating are the only two options.

And even them I'm still mindful of basic power dynamics and would end the date on "hit me up whenever" so that she is in control.

Yeah having the phone number of someone you know isn't really useful anyways

At 12/1/13 09:02 AM, thatkidkenji wrote: Apparently lots of people do. I'm sorry we're not hxc and leet like you.

Nah don't even try. I counted like 5 people being serious in this thread of yours.

Also,

At 11/30/13 01:40 PM, Natick wrote: sophia coppola

VVV lolnope VVV

At 12/1/13 09:35 AM, Splats wrote:

At 11/30/13 01:40 PM, Natick wrote: sophia coppola

VVV lolnope VVV

*sofia coppola

At 11/30/13 06:59 AM, Slint wrote: Females always make shit movies no exceptions ever.

Most* females.

Did you know the Uncharted series was directed by a female?

At 12/1/13 02:01 PM, beakerboy wrote:

At 11/30/13 06:59 AM, Slint wrote: Females always make shit movies no exceptions ever.

Most* females.

Did you know the Uncharted series was directed by a female?

Movie