Actually I'd say neuroplasticity is,circumstantially, better than high IQ.

If you can mold a person to a certain mode of conduct, they can achieve greater life success than by simply having high cognition.

tits pobably

Oh, in terms of age

Eh, cognitive function tends to vary by exercise rather than by age

They say IQ tends to "crystallize" with age

which basically means that as you lose neuroplasticity, your honed regions continue to work well and perhaps even better than when you were young

but the rest aren't able to increase performance in response to demand

I think "somewhere between 18 and 30" is a good answer.

@Hector what are the titles of the baron cohen studies

@James Peterson Not especially, no.

It's not PC

medicine and the redpill are a lot like science and faith

The first drink will have you swearing off of it, but at the bottom of the glass, it's waiting for you.

Thanks

although I want to mention that the result replication crisis is a thing

and the number of citations means pretty much nothing more than the number of views on a youtube video

@Hector Impossible

Would have been weeded out if it did not confer significant benefits

Intraversion is, socially, highly debilitating

It would be bred out by now

@Hector That's a nice hypothesis

You ever test it?

Have they?

who the f is that

@Truck-Kun

oh fugge

@The Great One

who's taylor

@iippo tons of people in each generation don'treproduce

humans stopped being threatened by wild predators centuries ago

as a significant selective pressure

@The Great One

oh kek

I wouldn't know dude

probably high

IQ dickmeasuring is pointless

you can be wrong or ignorant with high IQ, it confers little to the actual statements they make

it's only important so that we can put little effort into scrutinizing their statements

and pre-evaluate them and their speech

to see if it's even worth hearing

the brain is lay

*lazy

it cuts corners fucking everywhere

Yeah

> Humans that would have been k-selected and cooperative would have been group selected to weed out everyone else.
How does this follow?
> Cooperation may be the strongest factor in human selection. This is also why women favor extroverted men. They want men who can cooperate.
Women select for fitness in sexual selection, as do men.

Sure, maybe they select for extraversion, although it's also the case that extraverted men make more contact with women and with the increased exposure, will procreate with them far more often.

So whether women select for extraversion or not is mostly trivial.

But yeah, it's favored intergenerationally.

Alright, to a degree that may be the case.

And you correlate that to extraversion?

Cold conditions wouldn't mean that reclusive people would be selected against, though.

People that are extraverted would reach out to them and include them in the community

Because cooperation would mean easier survival.

Most social contact takes places due to the initiative of one side,not the receptiveness of the other.

Think of it in these terms

"It only takes one to start a fight."

based

@Hector It doesn't causatively tie extraversion into intelligence though.

It just shows that under duress, extraverts will respond with less distraction

It's interesting that they might do better in silence as well, but n=118 is not exactly representative population=wide.

You'd need at least thousands.

@Hector > There is a strong correlation between extroversion and number of children. This is widely accepted. Introverted people would have had few children. Especially under Darwinian conditions, introverted people/people not willing to cooperate would have been breed out. Those not willing to participate with the group have would been not able to breed or would have had fewer children.

How is any of this relevant?

tl;dr dude

You have 100 female students.

That's nice, but so what?

@Hector >I never claimed IQ was caused by extroversion
Why are you implying I claimed that of you?

Again, it's unclear what that has to do with anything.

It's dubious that extraversion and high intelligence are tied together.

The one study we have is 100 schoolgirls showing a pretty weak correlation in the absence of distractors.

In a test not *designed* to show how extraversion affects intelligence. Only how distracted people are according to their extra/itnraversion.

That it's unlikely that extraversion is definitively tied to intelligence.

What is your position?

There's 118 schoolgirls in a tengentially related study.

There's that.

@Hector Given that both extraversion and intelligence are very vague concepts, it wouldn't exactly be a challenge to pick apart metrics attempting to quantify either, as being subjective and potentially misleading.

This is why this is mostly vain and a special olympics discipline.

You can't tack a hard quantifier on either sociability or intellect.

That's the issue proper IQ tests have,even.

This is a big reason I'm not very enthusiastic about academia

If you have a cardiology study with n=130,000

I'll take it

as moderately reliable

@Hector No need to get defensive.

If you were reading what I wrote,you would see that I've explained that the quetion does not bear proving in the first place.

Because of vague predicates.

It might be the case, I have no particular preference

But I'm skeptical of any proposed proof of the hypothesis

Yeah. It's conjecture any way you slice it.

@Hector I don't consider it very reliable, due to the openness it has to interpretation.

The less concrete and direct a question is, the more cultural differences will enter into play.

tl;dr no, I don't have much faith in Raven's matrices

Ambiguity works against its predictive ability

There are implicit and presupposed concepts that a participant would need to have in order to score higher, so the test suffers from false negatives and false positives.

Being more familiar with the expected approaches to solvingthe problems would hinder or assist participants

Given that cognition is largely efficiency - that is, it's quantitative rather than qualtitative - this kind of test doesn't seem very reliable or accurate.

It may still be so functionally, but who can say if that's thanks to, or despite, its design.

Fundamentally, intelligence is too broad as a concept. Until the predicate stops being vague,there are going to problems with testing for it

Because if you don't know what you're testing for...