You have IQ differences

Which makes sense

Considering the fact there is a bell curve

one of the strongest factors is nutrition, which is directly linked to wealth.
IQ measures a specific subset of intelligence as well, which means you also have to control what those people are gunning for in academics.

Well I’ll talk more about it tomorrow

Because I woke up at 2 in the morning and it’s 9

But yes

Food and sleep effect IQ but not as much

I think there was evidence blacks actually ate better than whites on average at one point

tomorrow night i'll be at a scorpions show. Otherwise sure.

Alright man

I’ll make sure to be more alert

And not fucking retarded tired

XD rest well

also one point to bring up

so long as the floor is high enough, it doesnt even really matter

You too man

not everyone needs to be 100IQ

just above 90 will suffice in most cases

kinda, yeah, but there are better ways to frame that.
As long as people get to do their thing in peace none of that matters beyond academic interest.

IQ is just like taking a school exam. It measures your performance on that exam, but it doesnt measure your inteligence.

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-validity-of-iq/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity

Even the wiki says it is very good in the field of psychology

People always deny science when it goes against their religion-I mean ideology. What was the difference again?

“Yeah man who’s Thomas Aquinas? What were the dark ages? What was the Renaissance?”

Are you purposefully trying to seem historically illiterate or are you just naturally that way

The thing is, psychometricians can't determine exactly what is the best way to calculate IQ. Just like an econometrican can't predict a recession just like that. I have plenty of experience dealing with psychologists and human behaviour analysts, and from my experience I know that most of the decisions they take arent right. Im not going to share my personal stories, because thatd be anecdotal evidence. But a psychologist can’t know what is the best for you. You cannot let anybody set the life for you. You can take advices, but you cannot fully transform your life in conformity to what the others (including psychologists) think is the best for you. Only you can know what is the best for you, and how to leave your own mess. Thats why antidepressives or psychologists are really inefficient at fighting human depressions.
I don't know what is the best IQ test out there (probably Mensa), but it still doesn't objectively measure human intelligence. An African can move to USA and instantly his IQ moves to 100 points easily. If you had no education and lived in, lets say, a country that provides with no education for the population. If you don’t learn how to write, or how to divide or do simple maths, then you cant do an IQ test. What would be your IQ there? But now, with an education? Surely, your IQ would be different. Why? Because IQ tests are basically as good as measuring intelligence as a school test is. Many intellectuals hated school by the way.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201107/what-einstein-twain-forty-eight-others-said-about-school
“because I ran into difficulties with my teachers, who were irritated by the combination of obvious ability and laziness and lack of interest I showed. . . . I consistently neglected my homework, counting on picking up enough during lessons to scrape through.” - Hayek

https://youtu.be/_u2hRgi3x90

@SC01 Two things can both be true. IQ tests are not the only predictor of success. IQ tests are the strongest predictor of success.
The correlation between IQ and success is the highest out of all other factors that we know of at the moment. This can't be denied, it's been proven many times.

Does it mean you will be successful if you have a high IQ? No. Unsuccessful if you have a low IQ? No. It's not a guarantee, it's just a predictor.
It can therefore also not guarantee in which areas exactly you're going to be (un)successful. It's just a good predictor, not set in stone.

It also "only" has a 0.5 correlation, which is the highest that exists, but nowhere near high enough that you can guarantee anything about individuals, or even small groups of people.

This correlation of 0.5 is strong on a very large scale, when deviation becomes virtually meaningless.

And I'm not saying we should ignore the exceptions. They exist, they're meaningful, and we should study them. But we don't use them for predictions about unknown individuals.

Likewise if individuals fall outside the standard range, we don't say this disproves the rule

Or that the rule should be ignored

IQ should be considered, just not taken as the holy grail

IQ is just like school tests, it may test sucess with some limitations, but it sure doesnt measure inteligence.

its the best quantifyable indicator there is

iq is a measure of problem solving speed, which would include by nature, certain knowledge retention and recallection

also intellectuals hate school because school is a confined space based on the slowest students, collectivising children because one-on-one isnt possible