- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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 8/2/25 at 6:19 pm to wackatimesthree
Posted on 8/2/25 at 6:19 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:she is this way in basically every thread. I frankly think her entire goal in every thread she goes into is to see if she can piss people off. I don't think she's trying to win an argument. I don't think she even cares if a single person accepts one of her points. She's just trying to piss you off. The end. And when she does in her mind that's victory
This time I'm not so sure. But if you're right, this is the last time I'm ever engaging with her, because if you're right, the faith with which she engages is worse than I ever thought
0
Posted on 8/2/25 at 6:26 pm to Narax
quote:
Loury was born on September 3
Ah, a fellow Virgo.
quote:
He did much of his early work while having a drug habit as he discusses in some of his work.
Naturally, I am drawn to characters with sordid pasts. Economics has never been an area of great interest for me, but I’m interested in Glenn Loury. Thanks for bringing him into this thread.
This quote of his particularly resonates with me: “The land of the free – we’ve got an army marching around the world under the banner of freedom, and yet, we are the most un-free society… the incidence of incarceration is higher in the United States than elsewhere in the world.”
Posted on 8/2/25 at 6:50 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Now, I suspect it may be dawning upon you soon that the sentence you quoted can be read two different ways, either of which are equally correct. It can be read the way you read it, or it can be read to mean, "Specifically that black parents in America do not read to their children with the frequency or consistency of other races when they are very young.
Yes. You say you were making a broader claim. I did not read it that way but if that’s what you meant, that’s what you meant. I’m obviously not going to argue with you about the point you were trying to make. It was your point. You would know it better than I would.
quote:
even after you were told that the way you interpreted the sentence was not correct
I missed your post clarifying your intended point when you made it. I could say the sky is blue and an army of posters would cuss me out for saying that so I’m not very persuaded by other people saying I’m wrong about anything.
quote:
This is why you are so disliked here.
I don’t think I’m so disliked here.
quote:You wrote paragraphs about the different ways what you wrote could be read. I didn’t mischaracterize it. I read it as black people don’t read to their kids.
You simply cannot have a full discussion with someone without eventually mischaracterizing what they have said.
Then Narax posted data that indicated 75% of black families read to their young kids and people are still up in arms saying that I’m wrong for taking issue with what you wrote about black people not reading to their kids. It really seems like people aren’t happy unless they convince themselves and me that I’m wrong about whatever point is being discussed.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 7:05 pm to Narax
quote:
Beyond that you are going to have to source why you think a doctorate is unachieveable by anyone with a working brain
If you did, I’m sure it was decades ago, but have you ever read Flowers for Algernon? Reading your post made me think of Charlie.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 7:13 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I’m wrong for taking issue with what you wrote about black people not reading to their kids. It really seems like people aren’t happy unless they convince themselves and me that I’m wrong about whatever point is being discussed.
No they aren't happy because everybody in this fricking thread knows that you realized the problem for at least 10 pages but just fricking refuse to acknowledge it because you're a count
Posted on 8/2/25 at 7:19 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
If you did, I’m sure it was decades ago, but have you ever read Flowers for Algernon? Reading your post made me think of Charlie.
While I have not, it does look interesting, but I must ask...
Before or after the Operation...
Posted on 8/2/25 at 8:03 pm to Narax
quote:Does Whoopi Goldberg have a "working brain"? Joy Behar? I ask because your assertion they could attain a doctorate aside from the degree being gifted is ludicrous. We are born with genetic presets. In some instances, the presets are ranges, but the ranges are nonetheless limited. Isolated twin studies range into a 7-12pt IQ differential at the extremes.
Beyond that you are going to have to source why you think a doctorate is unachieveable by anyone with a working brain.
I had no idea you were contending that the only thing separating Jerry Nadler and Elon Musk IQ-wise was happenstance and upbringing. There is not a legitimate clinical study ever asserting that.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 8:16 pm to 4cubbies
quote:OK.
You wrote paragraphs about the different ways what you wrote could be read. I didn’t mischaracterize it. I read it as black people don’t read to their kids.
I read his post, and its intent seemed so obvious that I believed your mischaracterization of what he said must be deliberate. It's good you clarified.
I guess I'd point out that assuming bigotry, sexism, racism, etc. where none exists is an awful enough mistake that one should probably, at the least, ask for clarification before posting the accusation.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 8:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Does Whoopi Goldberg have a "working brain"? Joy Behar? I ask because your assertion they could attain a doctorate aside from the degree being gifted is ludicrous. We are born with genetic presets. In some instances, the presets are ranges, but the ranges are nonetheless limited. Isolated twin studies range into a 7-12pt IQ differential at the extremes.
I fully believe after 8 or so your brain is pretty much done making major changes.
But for a newborn, with a functional brain capable of making new neural connections.
Do you think being a MD is beyond them?
quote:
I had no idea you were contending that the only thing separating Jerry Nadler and Elon Musk IQ-wise was happenstance and upbringing. There is not a legitimate clinical study ever asserting that.
When does genetics start for you?
For me it starts at conception.
Everything after that is nurture and environment.
That is when those neuron connections start forming to later be pruned.
What causes the forming?
Information, sensory inputs.
So when I say people can do it I'm talking about total potential from birth onwards.
By 12th grade many things are beyond many people.
Much less by Whoopi's age.
That said Nadler is Jewish, graduated a top HS and an Ivy League college.
He probably has a really high IQ.
I think there is also a concept that all doctors have high IQ scores. There are reports of at least one MD with an IQ of 97.
https://gwern.net/doc/iq/ses/2002-hauser.pdf
Bottom for MD there looks about 105-108.
This post was edited on 8/2/25 at 8:41 pm
Posted on 8/2/25 at 8:33 pm to Narax
quote:
Before or after the Operation...
My thought was that a pre-op Charlie didn’t have the capacity to become a surgeon.
It’s a very fast and easy read if you ever decide to read the book. I’m sure you’d be able to find it on Libby if you have a library card.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 8:42 pm to Narax
quote:Sorry to be blunt, but that is not science. Belief is religion. Scientific facts don't give a rat's arse what you "believe."
I fully believe after 8 or so your brain ...
I addressed the same premise with cubbies earlier. I'd like to be able to wishcast reality. But reality is one cold bitch. She's unbeholden to wishes, hopes, or fantasy.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 8:44 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I read his post, and its intent seemed so obvious that I believed your mischaracterization of what he said must be deliberate. It's good you clarified.
The way I process information can be problematic at times. The whole miss the forest for the trees dilemma. I always go straight to the nitty gritty. I can’t help it.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 8:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
But reality is one cold bitch. She's unbeholden to wishes, hopes, or fantasy.
Maybe not? I’ve been doing a shallow dive into metaphysics for the last few years.
ETA I meant to say quantum physics.
This post was edited on 8/2/25 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 8/2/25 at 8:50 pm to Narax
quote:Start?
When does genetics start for you?
WTF does that even mean?
In terms of this discussion, I'd assume you mean "when is genetic influence on IQ first apparent?"???
I'd say that would be "at the point of phenotypic expression."
Posted on 8/2/25 at 8:54 pm to Narax
quote:
I fully believe after 8 or so your brain is pretty much done making major changes.
Neuroplasticity!
Posted on 8/2/25 at 8:54 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Sorry to be blunt, but that is not science. Belief is religion. Scientific facts don't give a rat's arse what you "believe."
In all seriousness your side has provided next to nothing scientifically.
Have you once questioned your beleif set?
But fine.
The brain reaches about 95% of its adult size by age 6.
Neuronal proliferation starts at 4, and ends at 12.
Those are facts
Its my belief that that process has 4 years left to go at 8, but it's also 2 years after 95% of overall mass.
This is why I said I believe.
quote:
I addressed the same premise with cubbies earlier. I'd like to be able to wishcast reality. But reality is one cold bitch. She's unbeholden to wishes, hopes, or fantasy.
That's fine, but you have to admit that your side for a totally finite intelligence from conception really has not provided much other than beleif and a claim of "the science is settled".
This post was edited on 8/2/25 at 9:10 pm
Posted on 8/2/25 at 8:54 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I’ve been doing a shallow dive into metaphysics
quote:Interesting. While metaphysics was believable (just seems to be your bent), what did you learn from your shallow dive into quantum physics?
I meant to say quantum physics
Posted on 8/2/25 at 9:01 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
While metaphysics was believable (just seems to be your bent), what did you learn from your shallow dive into quantum physics?
I’m not going to feign any sort of expertise but my understanding is that what we call reality isn’t real. It’s just a reflection of our respective beliefs and perceived limitations.
Idk maybe this is more in tune with metaphysics? Like I said, I’m no expert.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 9:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
In terms of this discussion, I'd assume you mean "when is genetic influence on IQ first apparent?"???
No, when does genetic influence start, it's a rhetorical question.
It starts when the egg and the sperm join and the DNA is set from the 50% of each parent.
I'm asking if you are putting that as the genetics that in your theory fully control IQ.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 9:12 pm to Narax
quote:So it's your contention that brain mass is synonymous with or generally related to IQ?
The brain reaches about 95% of its adult size by age 6.
Its my belief that that process has 4 years left to go at 8, but it's also 2 years after 95% of overall mass.
In terms of your 95% number, it might interest you to know the brain of Albert Einstein was only 90% the size of the average human brain.
So "your 95% number" is already 5% higher than Einstein's.
Page 27 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News