- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Some thoughts on IQ
Posted on 8/1/25 at 2:20 pm to Narax
Posted on 8/1/25 at 2:20 pm to Narax
quote:
some peoples brains can do more.
but HOW/WHY?!
Why does Terence have a significantly higher IQ than his brothers? What caused that?
I guess it was just luck of the draw, which both a blessing and a curse. Even terrible parents who happen to be dumb can have a smart kid, but smart parents who do everything right can still have a low or low-average IQ kid.
This post was edited on 8/1/25 at 2:31 pm
3
Posted on 8/1/25 at 2:34 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I see. Wouldn’t any descriptor do that same thing though? Someone saying “you’re so creative,” or “you’re just not very bright,” “you’re so analytical,” “you’re bad at math,” etc etc could all pigeonhole someone
As you are apt to observe, that may depend on other aspects of that person's makeup (regardless of whether we attribute it to nature or nurture). No one likes to be disrespected. Its a negative experience, but whether it motivates or disincentivises is highly individual. Maladjustment can happen if you go too far on either end of the spectrum.
The best situation for most is to find the environment that blends both constructive reassurance and constructive criticism. Big generic statements probably have little value to most. There isn't much someone can do with "You're not very bright." but honestly telling someone that is working on improving LSAT scores: "You seem pretty good at understanding passages from Social Sciences, but your scoring lower on identifying flaws. Maybe we want to focus a little more time on the latter--here are some resources." will help most.
IMHO, there isn't a problem to use scores and metrics to decide how to allocate resources for large programs. The problem is when the score is used to improperly incentivize or remove reasonable opportunity from someone. Advice and categorization should always be based on multivariate factors. We can't abstract that down to one number like we try to do for other decision science.
Ideally, there are multiple paths for attainment and educational opportunity. The former has some limitations. We can't take a random first grader and nominate them for the Supreme Court. There needs to be some attainment and accreditation to prevent drastic misake and that decision is in a short time.
This post was edited on 8/1/25 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 8/1/25 at 2:35 pm to 4cubbies
quote:Like how tall will offspring of a 6'1" and 6"2" parental combination be? Odds are 6'0" to 6'6" ... but ... 7'1" in Shaq's case. Genetics is an interesting subject.
If IQ is mostly determined by parents, I wonder how the outliers happen.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 2:40 pm to dukkbill
quote:
(Maybe, McWhorter was just tired of the kid who got into Columbia, but just decided to arse-off in his class :)
Oh he's super honest about his experiences lol
https://quillette.com/2020/12/16/the-question-of-affirmative-action-an-interview-with-glenn-loury/
Loury's take
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/diversity-is-great-but-it-doesnt
McWhorter's take
Posted on 8/1/25 at 2:44 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Genetics is an interesting subject.
My husband and I both have brown eyes. 2/3 of our kids have blue eyes.
Genes are weird.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 2:49 pm to Narax
Bold of you to post a link that contains this paragraph here:
quote:
I set this within a historical context in which African Americans—beginning from exclusion, slavery, Jim Crow segregation, widespread discrimination—are actually diminished in terms of the development of our competitive and productive capacities. Education was not equal in 1930 for blacks and whites, nor in 1950, nor in 1970 for that matter. There are all kinds of negative consequences of discrimination in employment, residential location, segregation, and so on that impede development within the African American population of the latent potential capacities to perform. Given such a history, one can’t expect at day one that there’s going to be equality of, say, test scores because the background condition is one of unequal opportunity to develop human skills. So that’s the status quo ante. That’s the baseline from which we are attempting to move towards something that’s more equal.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 2:54 pm to 4cubbies
quote:No.
Wouldn’t any descriptor do that same thing though?
IQ is a fixed number with specific implications, one of which is static capacity. Creativity, subject skills capacity, etc. have no comparative fixed number associated.
If someone says “you’re bad at math,” you can work to correct that. IQ is viewed like being born with brown eyes. I'm surprised with your interests in education, you'd be unaware of that.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 2:55 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
How does telling someone whose birthright is having a low IQ to pull themselves up by their bootstraps make sense?
Because we always should strive to do more.
There are obviously metes and bounds to your statement.
For instance, let's use Narax's research and state that everything in it is accurate. It would be possible for someone with that 80 IQ to improve by about 45 points in a perfectly ordered system. That means they match Richard Feynman.
Let's take it back to the other extreme that is posited here-- that IQ is purely immutable, but an 80 IQ still had this list of potential jobs, e.g. farm hand, simple assembly, cook, etc. All those are noble jobs. All contribute to society and even if that is maximum attainment, should not be a basis of being antisocial.
Now when our society can't provide opportunities to work, or persecutes those persons, then we have a policy dilemma, which is likely largely sepatate and apart from the discussion on mere IQ.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 2:59 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I guess it was just luck of the draw, which both a blessing and a curse. Even terrible parents who happen to be dumb can have a smart kid, but smart parents who do everything right can still have a low or low-average IQ kid.
For a tiny % of people there is the luck of being super special, and that has nothing to do with IQ.
Shaq's and Judge's speed/size
Jordan and Manning's spatial processing
Einstein and Bohr's genius (Which despite lower estimated IQ scores far outpaces Tao's)
Einstein unlocked new realms like Ramanujan, (Tao mainly solves problems in existing realms, adding new edges to known space, both things are rare though.)
We can cut their brain open, but it's unlikely that would even help.
Their brains are just incredibly good at forming something that is true from God only knows what.
if you think it's a mystery what caused Tao, Ramanujan would blow your mind.
There were no good genetics going on, no elite education, childhood small pox, raised in a rather not great upbringing, non traditional schooling.
Level after the next level mathematical brilliance.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:03 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Creativity, subject skills capacity, etc. have no comparative fixed number associated.
It is believed that creative output requires a minimum IQ of 120.
quote:
If someone says “you’re bad at math,” you can work to correct that. IQ is viewed like being born with brown eyes.
You and I know that people can improve. Kids who are repeatedly told they are bad at something may not know they can get better. It goes back to having a growth vs fixed mindset. Growth mindsets have to be fostered.
quote:
I'm surprised with your interests in education, you'd be unaware of that.
This is what I meant when I said you've been grumpy lately.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:05 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Bold of you to post a link that contains this paragraph here:
John and Glenn are brilliant scholars who happen to be African American.
I promise you having read much of both their works, they far more agree with me than they agree with you.
Both are anti-woke towers of intellect.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:09 pm to dukkbill
quote:
For instance, let's use Narax's research and state that everything in it is accurate. It would be possible for someone with that 80 IQ to improve by about 45 points in a perfectly ordered system. That means they match Richard Feynman.
Yes. Those conditions have to be created for kids, though. I taught kids for quite a while and I just want things to be fair for them. My rational brain knows that's impossible, but everything is impossible until it happens.
quote:
Let's take it back to the other extreme that is posited here-- that IQ is purely immutable, but an 80 IQ still had this list of potential jobs, e.g. farm hand, simple assembly, cook, etc. All those are noble jobs. All contribute to society and even if that is maximum attainment, should not be a basis of being antisocial.
Yes, I agree with all of this.
quote:
Now when our society can't provide opportunities to work, or persecutes those persons, then we have a policy dilemma, which is likely largely sepatate and apart from the discussion on mere IQ.
True.
You are quite the sage.
This post was edited on 8/1/25 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:09 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
It is believed that creative output requires a minimum IQ of 120.
By what lunatics?
No one serious thinks that.
Only 10% of the population can be creative?
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:10 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Why does Terence have a significantly higher IQ than his brothers? What caused that?
Some of the same things that causes Michael to be able to jump higher than me, and Arnold being able to powerlift more weight than me. There is a genetic component, an environmental component, and what Angela Duckworth would call a "grit" component.
Researchers in the field spend careers trying to metricize how much each contribute to overall attainment.
Often, what gets lost is that findings are pushed into unsupportable conclusions. For instance, "The Bell Curve" is the oft-cited work for those positing a high hereditabilty, but Herrnstein still used the findings of others of between 40-80% of IQ contribution being based on genetics. For the independent research he did himself, it was synthesis and he used a 60% factor. Most of the critics pushed back on this being a much lower number (and he didn't "debunk" this as he died 2 years before the book was published).
If you use the scholarship that Narax brought and we applied it to the hypothetical 80 IQ person. If they were able to obtain a 45 point boost, then its still around heredity being 44%.
On an individual level, you should be very reluctant to ever close a door. If you do, its not on IQ, but usually some "scaffolded" basis of attainment.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:14 pm to Narax
quote:
I promise you having read much of both their works, they far more agree with me than they agree with you.
In the interview that you linked, Loury makes many of the same points I've tried to make here, particularly about the lasting impact of centuries of systemic oppression.
quote:
Both are anti-woke towers of intellect.
I haven't read the other link yet but I appreciate Loury's point about the hypothetical of winning the Nobel Prize as a black man if a hint of political correctness played a part in awarding it. He made that point beautifully.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:16 pm to Narax
quote:
Only 10% of the population can be creative?
Creative like da Vinci or Shakespeare. Not creative like finger painting.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:18 pm to dukkbill
quote:
On an individual level, you should be very reluctant to ever close a door. If you do, its not on IQ, but usually some "scaffolded" basis of attainment.
Yes, this is the main part of my belief, using IQ is an easy shorthand to flatten a number of complex brain functions and how well they are performed).
In the end if someone never takes an IQ test, but is able to thrive, the score doesnt matter.
Unlocking enough human potential so that they have employment choices that contribute and can succeed at jobs they align with is far better than we are doing today.
This post was edited on 8/1/25 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:18 pm to 4cubbies
It isn’t like a black man hasn’t won the Nobel prize before. Didn’t Michelle Obama get one?
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:22 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Creative like da Vinci or Shakespeare. Not creative like finger painting.
Uh... 99.9999% of IQ 120 people can't be creative like Shakespeare on da Vinci....
Most 120 IQ people are finger painting compared to them.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 3:24 pm to Narax
quote:
if you think it's a mystery what caused Tao, Ramanujan would blow your mind.
Agree, The story also points out the difference between attainment and aptitude.
We may have discovered the ability to use partial sums in another manner. Ramanujan's works could have been later discovered and published, but his notoriety may not exist at all if not for GH Hardy.
Notoriety, respect, reverance, honor, etc are all separate social measures than IQ. While we can extrapolate the likely IQ needed to arrive at this conclusions, most (if not all) don't rever the IQ, they revere the abiltiy to work with infinite sets and obtain useful outcomes.
The failure to measure did not prevent attainment in this instance, but could in other instances. If we don't measure at all, society can lose that output. If we don't incentivize at all on those measures, then we may have someone abandon pursuits where they not only have the "IQ", but also have the "grit" and other measures to succeed in a discipline.
Page 20 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News