☯☼☯ SEO and Non-SEO (Science-Education-Omnilogy) Forum ☯☼☯
Normal Incels (Incels Without Hate) => A forum for incels who are normal people (no terrorists, no rapists, no racists, no pedophiles, no haters and so on) => Topic started by: Zhang Jie on April 24, 2023, 03:39:29 AM
-
I mean it seems to me only America is using IQ tests to assess the personnels, soldiers, and placing the students by their IQs.
Even the most academically discriminating country China does not place the students by their IQs but by their grades.
-
Not sure. A simple explanation may be: Probably it's their way to avoid the idiocracy. (If you didn't watch the movie "Idiocracy" (2006), I suggest you to watch it. It shows what may happen in the future if the Americans continue to neglect the education, knowledge, etc.)
Take a look: IQ scores have decreased in the US for the first time in decades, new research from scientists at Northwestern University and the University of Oregon suggests.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/09/study-suggests-iq-scores-in-the-us-have-fallen/#:~:text=IQ%20scores%20have%20decreased%20in%20the%20US%20for,education%20in%20the%2018%20to%2022%20age%20group. (https://nypost.com/2023/03/09/study-suggests-iq-scores-in-the-us-have-fallen/#:~:text=IQ%20scores%20have%20decreased%20in%20the%20US%20for,education%20in%20the%2018%20to%2022%20age%20group.)
Take another look: 23% of adults in the U.S. have not read a book in whole or in part in the previous year
https://bookriot.com/pandemic-reading-statistics/#:~:text=Adults%20who%20live%20in%20urban%20areas%20saw%20a,this%20number%20has%20held%20relatively%20steady%20since%202014. (https://bookriot.com/pandemic-reading-statistics/#:~:text=Adults%20who%20live%20in%20urban%20areas%20saw%20a,this%20number%20has%20held%20relatively%20steady%20since%202014.)
Just a reminder that the average USA citizen isn't very brainy. Of course, there are many clever US people and I am not one of those Europeans who'll say "All the Americans are stupid." but just want to tell you not to idealize them because if you're there you're going to face some of those who're not reading books. ;D
-
But the grades and the IQ are related. Not totally but you can't be a low IQed and to have good grades, can you?
-
I don't know, not sure but is it related to the incels? If not, tell me to move it to another board. Otherwise, tell us what do you mean? High IQcels something?
-
Not sure. A simple explanation may be: Probably it's their way to avoid the idiocracy. (If you didn't watch the movie "Idiocracy" (2006), I suggest you to watch it. It shows what may happen in the future if the Americans continue to neglect the education, knowledge, etc.)
Take a look: IQ scores have decreased in the US for the first time in decades, new research from scientists at Northwestern University and the University of Oregon suggests.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/09/study-suggests-iq-scores-in-the-us-have-fallen/#:~:text=IQ%20scores%20have%20decreased%20in%20the%20US%20for,education%20in%20the%2018%20to%2022%20age%20group. (https://nypost.com/2023/03/09/study-suggests-iq-scores-in-the-us-have-fallen/#:~:text=IQ%20scores%20have%20decreased%20in%20the%20US%20for,education%20in%20the%2018%20to%2022%20age%20group.)
Take another look: 23% of adults in the U.S. have not read a book in whole or in part in the previous year
https://bookriot.com/pandemic-reading-statistics/#:~:text=Adults%20who%20live%20in%20urban%20areas%20saw%20a,this%20number%20has%20held%20relatively%20steady%20since%202014. (https://bookriot.com/pandemic-reading-statistics/#:~:text=Adults%20who%20live%20in%20urban%20areas%20saw%20a,this%20number%20has%20held%20relatively%20steady%20since%202014.)
Just a reminder that the average USA citizen isn't very brainy. Of course, there are many clever US people and I am not one of those Europeans who'll say "All the Americans are stupid." but just want to tell you not to idealize them because if you're there you're going to face some of those who're not reading books. ;D
Another hearsay about the reason why they are obsessed with IQ is that the excuse that can flush black people out of the positions of high paid occupations becomes more 'scientific' since IQ tests are backed up by Psychometrics, though I think it is a piece of tremendous bullshit since you don't need to do so because America does not care about black people's human right lol. You can explicitly refuse to hire them.
-
But the grades and the IQ are related. Not totally but you can't be a low IQed and to have good grades, can you?
The first argument is contradictory to the second argument. I think unless your IQ is too low like below 80 which is considered as retarded, you can have good grades, since I've seen one example some time ago.
-
I don't know, not sure but is it related to the incels? If not, tell me to move it to another board. Otherwise, tell us what do you mean? High IQcels something?
Yeah this topic is related to IQcel. Like China is obsessed over height, America is obsessed over IQ.
-
Not sure. A simple explanation may be: Probably it's their way to avoid the idiocracy. (If you didn't watch the movie "Idiocracy" (2006), I suggest you to watch it. It shows what may happen in the future if the Americans continue to neglect the education, knowledge, etc.)
Take a look: IQ scores have decreased in the US for the first time in decades, new research from scientists at Northwestern University and the University of Oregon suggests.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/09/study-suggests-iq-scores-in-the-us-have-fallen/#:~:text=IQ%20scores%20have%20decreased%20in%20the%20US%20for,education%20in%20the%2018%20to%2022%20age%20group. (https://nypost.com/2023/03/09/study-suggests-iq-scores-in-the-us-have-fallen/#:~:text=IQ%20scores%20have%20decreased%20in%20the%20US%20for,education%20in%20the%2018%20to%2022%20age%20group.)
Take another look: 23% of adults in the U.S. have not read a book in whole or in part in the previous year
https://bookriot.com/pandemic-reading-statistics/#:~:text=Adults%20who%20live%20in%20urban%20areas%20saw%20a,this%20number%20has%20held%20relatively%20steady%20since%202014. (https://bookriot.com/pandemic-reading-statistics/#:~:text=Adults%20who%20live%20in%20urban%20areas%20saw%20a,this%20number%20has%20held%20relatively%20steady%20since%202014.)
Just a reminder that the average USA citizen isn't very brainy. Of course, there are many clever US people and I am not one of those Europeans who'll say "All the Americans are stupid." but just want to tell you not to idealize them because if you're there you're going to face some of those who're not reading books. ;D
Another hearsay about the reason why they are obsessed with IQ is that the excuse that can flush black people out of the positions of high paid occupations becomes more 'scientific' since IQ tests are backed up by Psychometrics, though I think it is a piece of tremendous bullshit since you don't need to do so because America does not care about black people's human right lol. You can explicitly refuse to hire them.
It's political again. And it's not good to accuse one country that doesn't care about one of its group because there are people who care and people who doesn't care. They have got constitution that implies the rights; they have even positive discrimination (which occur when someone is hired or promoted because of their belonging to an underrepresented group.) I suppose the black people situation is similar to ours Henan (河南) people or Uighur people. Yes, there are Chinese who doesn't care or hate them but we can't say about "all China" or "all America". There are people everywhere people who cares.
And what's the problem of the IQcels? The low IQcels understandably have problems. ;D But the high IQ are 'privileged'.
-
Not sure. A simple explanation may be: Probably it's their way to avoid the idiocracy. (If you didn't watch the movie "Idiocracy" (2006), I suggest you to watch it. It shows what may happen in the future if the Americans continue to neglect the education, knowledge, etc.)
Take a look: IQ scores have decreased in the US for the first time in decades, new research from scientists at Northwestern University and the University of Oregon suggests.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/09/study-suggests-iq-scores-in-the-us-have-fallen/#:~:text=IQ%20scores%20have%20decreased%20in%20the%20US%20for,education%20in%20the%2018%20to%2022%20age%20group. (https://nypost.com/2023/03/09/study-suggests-iq-scores-in-the-us-have-fallen/#:~:text=IQ%20scores%20have%20decreased%20in%20the%20US%20for,education%20in%20the%2018%20to%2022%20age%20group.)
Take another look: 23% of adults in the U.S. have not read a book in whole or in part in the previous year
https://bookriot.com/pandemic-reading-statistics/#:~:text=Adults%20who%20live%20in%20urban%20areas%20saw%20a,this%20number%20has%20held%20relatively%20steady%20since%202014. (https://bookriot.com/pandemic-reading-statistics/#:~:text=Adults%20who%20live%20in%20urban%20areas%20saw%20a,this%20number%20has%20held%20relatively%20steady%20since%202014.)
Just a reminder that the average USA citizen isn't very brainy. Of course, there are many clever US people and I am not one of those Europeans who'll say "All the Americans are stupid." but just want to tell you not to idealize them because if you're there you're going to face some of those who're not reading books. ;D
Another hearsay about the reason why they are obsessed with IQ is that the excuse that can flush black people out of the positions of high paid occupations becomes more 'scientific' since IQ tests are backed up by Psychometrics, though I think it is a piece of tremendous bullshit since you don't need to do so because America does not care about black people's human right lol. You can explicitly refuse to hire them.
that the excuse that can flush black people out of the positions of high paid occupations
Wow! You're implying that the black people are low IQed. For many (black people and non-black people) is may sound racist. I know the percent of well educated, hence higher IQed black people isn't the highest but it's because of the social, economical, subcultural reasons. (Just making it clear that we're not racists here and we're trying to represent the objective picture. We don't and we can't mean that all black people are low IQed). The second problem about this -- can you support this claim that there are policies or attempts of the non-black Americans to flush balck people out of the positions of high paid occupations? I know some people, especially some of the black people themselves will claim the same but are there statistical facts about it because it's not good to point at something so serious without proofs.
because America does not care about black people's human right
It's like another serious accusation. Everyone may say something like "Japan doesn't care about Ainu people's human rights." or "Australia dosn't care about Aborigines people's human rights." and you can probably find examples of discrimination or some local problem but to accuse the whole country (or all its people isn't good and responsible). This is exactly the same wrong logic when it comes to China -- "All Chinese （汉族） hate the minorities （少数民族）, you're a Han（汉族的）-Chinese, so you're bad!" When you're in the USA and some radical human right activists start to keep you responsible for the (true or false; you know some of the problems are true but there are also media produced fake baseless ones) problems of the human rights of Uigurs, Tibetans, Mongols, etc. are you going to feel good?
Or a similar analogy -- there are incels who really doesn't care about the females. And if some anti-incels know you're an incel and start to call you "Incels = don't care about us = you too!" are you going to accept that you're a heartless incels too?
The "incorrect summary" like "America doesn't care about the black lives." or "If you're an incel, you're a subhuman.", or "If you're a Chinese you're an anti-American." are leading to nowhere.
Just think about it: if the black Americans have much more human rights than the Koreans in North Korea and the Chinese in China, what is that talk about "America doesnt care about the black people"? Can a Chinese citizen go to play in a casino or own a gun shop? Of course not. But in the USA there are black men who go to play in casinos, who own legal gun shops and so on. (I am not saying the guns are a good human right, I am just giving you examples, that the blacks in USA are having more freedoms and the laws there are mostly more liberal than the ones in North Korea, China, Iran, etc.)
-
But the grades and the IQ are related. Not totally but you can't be a low IQed and to have good grades, can you?
The first argument is contradictory to the second argument. I think unless your IQ is too low like below 80 which is considered as retarded, you can have good grades, since I've seen one example some time ago.
They just overlap. You see, an IQ test is a test the same as an exam in the school which is also a test but more concrete. The marks (diploma) are something like a whole IQ test (even more than it if there are PE marks, which are showing your "PE Q", art marks, music marks, etc.) To me a diploma (if it's not fake or based on corrupted teachers) is showing more what you're as a person than an IQ test.
Think about it: what is more important? To know if someone answers well about "Which object comes next?" (like in this one: (https://www.intelligencetest.com/img/questions/pattern-recognition/share/5.png)) or to know how well a person learned the subject "Logic" (the logic marks) in school? Or to know that someone found where is the triangle out of the squares compared to know his/her "Geometry" marks?
And yes, there is a strong correlation between the IQ (and the EQ) and the marks. If you agreed that the low IQ people can't learn well, it means that these (IQ, EQ and the marks) somehow overlap.
Let's define the "IQ": Intelligence quotient, which is a score that shows how well someone understands and interprets the world around them. If we use this definition, well, sorry but if you do understand and interpret the world well, then most of your marks should be good.
-
I don't know, not sure but is it related to the incels? If not, tell me to move it to another board. Otherwise, tell us what do you mean? High IQcels something?
Yeah this topic is related to IQcel. Like China is obsessed over height, America is obsessed over IQ.
If we're going to make these generalizations, I'd say that "China" (i. e. most of the adult Chinese I met) is obsessed over money. I saw tall but poor people without girlfriends but I never saw rich people who're single. Even those fat, short, old uncle type (or real uncles) Chinese do have women (some of them even more than just one; they like to collect more -- lovers, additional "wives"... the so-called "小三" ("thirdlet", a lover), "小四" ("fourthlet"), "小老婆" ("weifelet") and others).
Yes, there may be 60%-70% females who'll reject a rich shortcel but there are 99%+ who'll surely reject a poorcel.
I don't blame them; this is the result of the not having enough and willing to have more. (It's popular in many other countries too. There are Western incels who said that the poor Chads in their places also can't get a girl and are in fact poorcels.) At least better than the opposite "be proud of being poor and obey the one in power willingly!".
-
Some Chinese and other females are leaving their foreign boyfriends too if they don't get rich. I know some women who tried hoping that the foreigners will be richer than the Chinese but later when they found that it's not the case, they left.
-
Brocel, you're really lucky if you're really a rich person. Well because the girls in your social circle are also rich they are even pickier than the average female and they'll search for more traits like "I want a tall man." but if you lower your standards and choose to be in a non-Shanghai area (for example, pick a town around Guiyang (贵阳) or something similar) you'll be not an incel anymore. You're a locationcel (mostly and firstly).
Till now only some women asked me "How tall you are?", most of the questions are: "What's your job?", "What do you work and how much do you earn?", "Are you rich?", "Do you have a company?", "What do you plan to develop as a business?"
My main problem is that I am poorcel and this is it: money > the rest.
-
Marks are better check because they show you in many subjects, for a longer time. IQ test is just once. I think if everything was about the IQ tests, then there will be no marks in schools. We will only take an IQ test once. ;D
-
Reminds me of this song my friend showed me where the lyrics were mocking and satirical.
It goes "I'm from the south and I'm relaly fucking stupid. I can't read. I can't write. i got a cleft lip and a lazy eye."
-
That's a high IQ song. ;D
-
Edited.
1. Avoid cursing in different forms, please. This may harm our forum's ranking and our advertising (income) opportunities.
2. Don't use non-English languages in the English sections. You can post in the Other languages (http://www.seo-forum-seo-luntan.com/other-languages/) board.
-
Edited. Please, try to understand. I'm not against you, I'm against the cursing. "Få vekk" is so-so ("Get out of here.") but the rest... let's be without hate, as it was stipulated. :-*
-
I'm actually used to swearing on other forums but I try not to swear as much anymore.
Bad habit.
-
I don't know why I got cursed. ::) I only wanted to say that the song's lyrics are not good for the intelligent people and I were joking. Just for the record. :D
-
If the marks are objective, they're the best IQ "mirror".
-
Plus, don't forget another reason why we dislike cursing... it's because we're the nicest place on the net (http://www.seo-forum-seo-luntan.com/social-network-seo-social-network/the-nicest-place-on-the-internet/)! Remember? 8) :) :)
-
But the grades and the IQ are related. Not totally but you can't be a low IQed and to have good grades, can you?
The first argument is contradictory to the second argument. I think unless your IQ is too low like below 80 which is considered as retarded, you can have good grades, since I've seen one example some time ago.
They just overlap. You see, an IQ test is a test the same as an exam in the school which is also a test but more concrete. The marks (diploma) are something like a whole IQ test (even more than it if there are PE marks, which are showing your "PE Q", art marks, music marks, etc.) To me a diploma (if it's not fake or based on corrupted teachers) is showing more what you're as a person than an IQ test.
Think about it: what is more important? To know if someone answers well about "Which object comes next?" (like in this one: (https://www.intelligencetest.com/img/questions/pattern-recognition/share/5.png)) or to know how well a person learned the subject "Logic" (the logic marks) in school? Or to know that someone found where is the triangle out of the squares compared to know his/her "Geometry" marks?
And yes, there is a strong correlation between the IQ (and the EQ) and the marks. If you agreed that the low IQ people can't learn well, it means that these (IQ, EQ and the marks) somehow overlap.
Let's define the "IQ": Intelligence quotient, which is a score that shows how well someone understands and interprets the world around them. If we use this definition, well, sorry but if you do understand and interpret the world well, then most of your marks should be good.
IQ test does not just have pattern-recognization items, and with all due respect you need to know more about IQ tests. The rigorous IQ tests are normed properly, and have excellent psychometric properties which can produce a score that is very representative of your general intelligence(aka 'g') deriving from its high g-loading(the correlation to 'g'), and general intelligence is intensively backed up by tons of psychometric researches and empirical statistical evidences. I can't go too far here since I myself dare not say I am very expert at this topic and you need to do a lot of researches yourself instead of relying on my eludications. I am not blaming you for being ignorant about this topic in the slighest bit since this is not popular and people tend not to go down this shithole so it's totally understandable and 'innocent'.
Let's go back to the topic. The biggest reason why I kinda love America is... Yeah I am Autismmaxxing lol, is its most abundance of IQ tests all over the world! And they are of very awesome qualities! And this is the reason why I think America is the country most obsessed with IQ. IQcels are living the worst lives there and yeah in China and S.Korea. And I firmly insist that IQcels have more excuses to be suffering from inferior complexities. Being tall.. really only does matter in dating and some of occupations, but IQ influences how good your life is to a degree and if your IQ is too low, yeah then your life is really doomed.
Btw, my academic history is really just average.
-
Marks are better check because they show you in many subjects, for a longer time. IQ test is just once. I think if everything was about the IQ tests, then there will be no marks in schools. We will only take an IQ test once. ;D
If you are talking about the significance of the oscillation of IQ, then you are wrong. IQ is not only the most valid psychological construct but also the most stable one. People tend to have a static IQ along the life after their intelligences finish developping until they have brain damages, intoxications, etc.. For ex, if you got 100 IQ on gold standard IQ tests such as WAIS/Stanford-Binet, then your IQ stays 100 along your life unless you encounter with horrible incidents, so IQ test being just once can't refute the stability of IQ.
And you can't confuse IQ with grade. They correlate with each other of course but not strongly, at least not as strongly as many people think that if you have high grades your IQ is high, or only if your IQ is high you can have high grades. I've seen many cases in which the person with an IQ that is SDs higher than mine has lower grades than mine because he/she does not try. I even happened to know that a guy named Jenny got 150+ IQ on Old SAT Math which is an extremely good indication of your quantitative talent got ineligible by his teacher's letter sent to his parents and he cried about it lol.
-
I don't know, not sure but is it related to the incels? If not, tell me to move it to another board. Otherwise, tell us what do you mean? High IQcels something?
Yeah this topic is related to IQcel. Like China is obsessed over height, America is obsessed over IQ.
If we're going to make these generalizations, I'd say that "China" (i. e. most of the adult Chinese I met) is obsessed over money. I saw tall but poor people without girlfriends but I never saw rich people who're single. Even those fat, short, old uncle type (or real uncles) Chinese do have women (some of them even more than just one; they like to collect more -- lovers, additional "wives"... the so-called "小三" ("thirdlet", a lover), "小四" ("fourthlet"), "小老婆" ("weifelet") and others).
Yes, there may be 60%-70% females who'll reject a rich shortcel but there are 99%+ who'll surely reject a poorcel.
I don't blame them; this is the result of the not having enough and willing to have more. (It's popular in many other countries too. There are Western incels who said that the poor Chads in their places also can't get a girl and are in fact poorcels.) At least better than the opposite "be proud of being poor and obey the one in power willingly!".
I think the generation you are talking about is not 'new' enough? I've seen some very rich people with low heights however are single and have got refused by girls for tons of times, and yeah what you said is indeed applicable to the old generations of China but because the average quality of life has increased a lot, money is turning into an ambsace and for new generations, being rich with being too short like below 165cm barefoot for a man won't be able to be antidote to being a shortcel, unless you are very rich in addition to being very handsome(but still you can't be too short like below 160cm). You can never overestimate the benefit of richness. What I am implying is that being richness does not amplify your dating pool to the same degree as being tall and handsome for new generations now.
If you have one disadvantage and one advantage, the final outcome will be dependent of the weighs of them and the magnitudes of them, for new generations, the weighs of height and face are way heavier than money.
-
IQ test does not just have pattern-recognization items
who said they have only this? I saw as an example only (+ some school subject example).
-
for new generations, the weighs of height and face are way heavier than money.
I think for all generations good-looking is better for falling in love than just money. The problem is that new or old, no female will stay with you if you're homeless, you don't pay her bills at least A-A and you're not providing her. Some Chinese women even want you to give money to their parents. Try having a girl-friend in China only with height and face and see how long she's with you (if she start to at all). ;D ;D ;D
No, seriously, find a handsome dude and make him to invite a girl saying that he's jobless, not going to pay dinners and no car, only pure love, walking in the parks, sitting and talking at home and drinking home-made tea... See how many girls will say "No problem, 帅哥就够了啊！" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
IQ test does not just have pattern-recognization items
who said they have only this? I saw as an example only (+ some school subject example).
哲学家 was implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items(thus you get 'PQ' by an IQ test) and I pointed out that was totally false.
And, by the way, to improve your epistemologies about the types of the items of IQ test, the types contain: Information(Knowledge), Similarity, Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Matrix Reasoning, Visual Puzzle, etc., and Matrix Reasoning(the type 哲学家 showcased to us) is just one corner of the iceberg. IQ test is way more complex than you think, and the science(Psychometrics) behind it is very intriguing and I gotta spare millions of words to elucidate it. You can se the science is very abstruse. It is heavily reliant on Statistics and Psychology. If you are interested I can recommend you my own bibilography and after reading these books you will learn a lot about Psychometrics.
-
哲学家 was implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items
Here, this reminds me another Chinese young man who said that he should protect China against me because I told him I dislike the current president. For him "You said you don't like 1 Chinese man." = "You're against all China." ;D Here the logic flaw is similar -- I gave an EXAMPLE (double example) with a type/types of IQ questions and school subjects. (And it was: To know if someone answers well about "Which object comes next?" (like in this one: ) or to know how well a person learned the subject "Logic" (the logic marks) in school? Or to know that someone found where is the triangle out of the squares compared to know his/her "Geometry" marks?
) but the logic flaw brought us to the point where I am "implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items". ;D Liam, a quick question for you: if I say that "Rabbits are smaller than cars." are you making the conclusion that I am "implying" all the fauna has got only rabbits? :D
No, it's okay, I am not a specialist about the IQ tests. I majored in Philosophy (Bachelor's) and Philosophical Anthropology (Master's). I learn about the human intelligence, behavior, brain, relationship with the animals, emotions and so on, but we didn't go into details about the IQ tests so I do admit you know the matter much better. I only underline again that the point wasn't what you got -- the point was that when I want to understand better the intellect and the nature of a person, I choose to see his/her marks than his/her IQ test. The marks (if they're objective) can show me more than the IQ test. And you know why? Exactly because for the good grades you need: more knowledge, more hard work, more EQ, more motivation... and as you noticed "because he/she does not try"...
More, it's maybe true for some that "People tend to have a static IQ along the life after their intelligences finish developing", but I disagree that this is a rule for everybody. People who're active learners and do efforts may improve their intelligence more and more; it's "never finish". (Thinking of the IQ as static is very "a la black-pill": "no chance to improve", "it's over", "never begins" and other metaphysical, non-dialectical statements.)
Here some more articles about it: - The Fallacy Of A Fixed IQ (https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/iq-fixed-life.html) -- "... the way that we classify, categorize, taxonomize, and access knowledge can be improved as we age, and thus our IQ scores can definitely increase (and decrease, if we don’t keep our brains actively improving!)."
- William Klemm, Ph.D., is a senior professor of Neuroscience at Texas A&M University: No, Your IQ Is Not Constant (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/memory-medic/201805/no-your-iq-is-not-constant)
They correlate with each other of course but not strongly, at least not as strongly as many people think that if you have high grades your IQ is high, or only if your IQ is high you can have high grades.
This you got right. Nobody is saying that "IQ test = grades", we're talking about the correlations, the overlapping. Higher IQ --> better chance for higher grades --> reinforcing the IQ (see Pygmalion effect) It's like the money, height and face: being rich doesn't provide you 100% high success rate but being poor (like carless, homeless, etc.) decreases your chances of having a love partner nearly 100%, hence the money is a necessity nowadays because in the capitalistic world (or neofeudal in some parts, but the money also matters there) the females are materialistic and clever enough to avoid getting trapped in poverty. A money-maxxed Melvin has more chances to get a partner than a beggar Chad. And from the other perspective -- being tall and handsome provides you more initial opportunities to find some better income, to be more welcomed for better jobs, etc. Here we have also got this reinforcement, correlation and so on.
IQcels have more excuses to be suffering from inferior complexities.
If they're high IQcel, then they can use all this insecurities (inferiority complexes) as a motivation to self-improve themselves. For example, I was afraid I am too slim (some honest girls told me) and I started to gain weight. Later when I was too fat, there were new honest girls who said that I have to lose weight and to build muscle mass and there I am: gym-maxxed myself, sport-maxxing non-stop... or when I felt I don't know enough 汉字（Chinese characters）, I just started to learn more (every day 1-2 new characters) and now my Chinese already is already around "HSK 4" level. The moroncels and other low IQ males who were in bad shape and who didn't know Chinese well, now are the same ugly-bodied men (dad-bod types) and their Chinese level is only "HSK 1"... So, as you can see, if you try harder and never stop, the results are showing up, gradually.
-
for new generations, the weighs of height and face are way heavier than money.
I think for all generations good-looking is better for falling in love than just money. The problem is that new or old, no female will stay with you if you're homeless, you don't pay her bills at least A-A and you're not providing her. Some Chinese women even want you to give money to their parents. Try having a girl-friend in China only with height and face and see how long she's with you (if she start to at all). ;D ;D ;D
No, seriously, find a handsome dude and make him to invite a girl saying that he's jobless, not going to pay dinners and no car, only pure love, walking in the parks, sitting and talking at home and drinking home-made tea... See how many girls will say "No problem, 帅哥就够了啊！" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
And let Liam read how many Chinese females (from different generations) honestly are saying "I don't like poor males." ("我不喜欢穷的男人。"): https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=3&rsv_bp=1&tn=cnopera&wd=我不喜欢穷的男人&oq=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsv_pq=ad47c81400021810&rsv_t=b160OSxOc8B2UnBw2x%2FSq3QRxPNhj2xf8w%2BXIH6YT88tbx5dPcm3rKgS3IS%2FQA&rqlang=cn&rsv_enter=1&rsv_dl=ts_1&rsv_sug3=1&rsv_sug1=1&rsv_sug7=100&rsv_sug2=1&rsv_btype=t&prefixsug=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsp=1&rsv_sug4=11634 (https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=3&rsv_bp=1&tn=cnopera&wd=我不喜欢穷的男人&oq=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsv_pq=ad47c81400021810&rsv_t=b160OSxOc8B2UnBw2x%2FSq3QRxPNhj2xf8w%2BXIH6YT88tbx5dPcm3rKgS3IS%2FQA&rqlang=cn&rsv_enter=1&rsv_dl=ts_1&rsv_sug3=1&rsv_sug1=1&rsv_sug7=100&rsv_sug2=1&rsv_btype=t&prefixsug=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsp=1&rsv_sug4=11634)
-
哲学家 was implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items
Here, this reminds me another Chinese young man who said that he should protect China against me because I told him I dislike the current president. For him "You said you don't like 1 Chinese man." = "You're against all China." ;D Here the logic flaw is similar -- I gave an EXAMPLE (double example) with a type/types of IQ questions and school subjects. (And it was: To know if someone answers well about "Which object comes next?" (like in this one: ) or to know how well a person learned the subject "Logic" (the logic marks) in school? Or to know that someone found where is the triangle out of the squares compared to know his/her "Geometry" marks?
) but the logic flaw brought us to the point where I am "implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items". ;D Liam, a quick question for you: if I say that "Rabbits are smaller than cars." are you making the conclusion that I am "implying" all the fauna has got only rabbits? :D
No, it's okay, I am not a specialist about the IQ tests. I majored in Philosophy (Bachelor's) and Philosophical Anthropology (Master's). I learn about the human intelligence, behavior, brain, relationship with the animals, emotions and so on, but we didn't go into details about the IQ tests so I do admit you know the matter much better. I only underline again that the point wasn't what you got -- the point was that when I want to understand better the intellect and the nature of a person, I choose to see his/her marks than his/her IQ test. The marks (if they're objective) can show me more than the IQ test. And you know why? Exactly because for the good grades you need: more knowledge, more hard work, more EQ, more motivation... and as you noticed "because he/she does not try"...
More, it's maybe true for some that "People tend to have a static IQ along the life after their intelligences finish developing", but I disagree that this is a rule for everybody. People who're active learners and do efforts may improve their intelligence more and more; it's "never finish". (Thinking of the IQ as static is very "a la black-pill": "no chance to improve", "it's over", "never begins" and other metaphysical, non-dialectical statements.)
Here some more articles about it: - The Fallacy Of A Fixed IQ (https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/iq-fixed-life.html) -- "... the way that we classify, categorize, taxonomize, and access knowledge can be improved as we age, and thus our IQ scores can definitely increase (and decrease, if we don’t keep our brains actively improving!)."
- William Klemm, Ph.D., is a senior professor of Neuroscience at Texas A&M University: No, Your IQ Is Not Constant (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/memory-medic/201805/no-your-iq-is-not-constant)
They correlate with each other of course but not strongly, at least not as strongly as many people think that if you have high grades your IQ is high, or only if your IQ is high you can have high grades.
This you got right. Nobody is saying that "IQ test = grades", we're talking about the correlations, the overlapping. Higher IQ --> better chance for higher grades --> reinforcing the IQ (see Pygmalion effect) It's like the money, height and face: being rich doesn't provide you 100% high success rate but being poor (like carless, homeless, etc.) decreases your chances of having a love partner nearly 100%, hence the money is a necessity nowadays because in the capitalistic world (or neofeudal in some parts, but the money also matters there) the females are materialistic and clever enough to avoid getting trapped in poverty. A money-maxxed Melvin has more chances to get a partner than a beggar Chad. And from the other perspective -- being tall and handsome provides you more initial opportunities to find some better income, to be more welcomed for better jobs, etc. Here we have also got this reinforcement, correlation and so on.
IQcels have more excuses to be suffering from inferior complexities.
If they're high IQcel, then they can use all this insecurities (inferiority complexes) as a motivation to self-improve themselves. For example, I was afraid I am too slim (some honest girls told me) and I started to gain weight. Later when I was too fat, there were new honest girls who said that I have to lose weight and to build muscle mass and there I am: gym-maxxed myself, sport-maxxing non-stop... or when I felt I don't know enough 汉字（Chinese characters）, I just started to learn more (every day 1-2 new characters) and now my Chinese already is already around "HSK 4" level. The moroncels and other low IQ males who were in bad shape and who didn't know Chinese well, now are the same ugly-bodied men (dad-bod types) and their Chinese level is only "HSK 1"... So, as you can see, if you try harder and never stop, the results are showing up, gradually.
Ah, sorry I think I shoulda read what you had written completely. I was kinda suffering from ADHD so I could not toil through a sesquipedalian oration.
But, those articles you introduced me to do not refute what I said. The change of child's brain structure and IQ derive from the more reliance on his/her genes, and cognitive training can increase your cognitive abilities but not your general intelligence('g').
Here is an analogy to help you understand what I am saying:
Let's coin a concept 'Sport Intelligence' to stand for the common variance in your performances of all of sports, and I ask you to run, jump and lift-up to produce a quotient score that correlates with Sport Intelligence to some degree, and ok you've done badly on all of them and get a 70, which indicates your sport intelligence is low, and signifies you are innately very disadvantageous in the common variance in the performances of all of sports. And you go on a training to improve your performances in running, jumping and lifting up. This DOES NOT salvage your disadvantage in the COMMON VARIANCE, but just your SPECIFIC VARIANCES in the specific sport tasks(running jumping and lifting up), namely increasing the specific variances does not equate increasing the common variance, and the former is just correlated to the later.
It's analogous to 'increasing' your intelligence. You can train your memory, your matrix reasoning, your information, you name it, but still you can't increase your general intelligence, which is the common variance in all of the cognitive tasks.
To summarize, there are two major epistemological flaws contained by the articles you gave me:
1. They confused common variance with specific variances
2. They contributed the change in the brain structure to the increasing of intelligence instead of more reliance on genes.
I am kinda surprised a reputed professor in Neuroscience could commit such tremendous felonies, huh maybe that's another example why IQ does matter(he said his IQ was modest) lol? jk
Anyway I am not blackpilling. We gotta concede this world is totally unfair and the revelation of unfairness is not blackpilling, but the skewness of reality is.
-
for new generations, the weighs of height and face are way heavier than money.
I think for all generations good-looking is better for falling in love than just money. The problem is that new or old, no female will stay with you if you're homeless, you don't pay her bills at least A-A and you're not providing her. Some Chinese women even want you to give money to their parents. Try having a girl-friend in China only with height and face and see how long she's with you (if she start to at all). ;D ;D ;D
No, seriously, find a handsome dude and make him to invite a girl saying that he's jobless, not going to pay dinners and no car, only pure love, walking in the parks, sitting and talking at home and drinking home-made tea... See how many girls will say "No problem, 帅哥就够了啊！" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
And let Liam read how many Chinese females (from different generations) honestly are saying "I don't like poor males." ("我不喜欢穷的男人。"): https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=3&rsv_bp=1&tn=cnopera&wd=我不喜欢穷的男人&oq=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsv_pq=ad47c81400021810&rsv_t=b160OSxOc8B2UnBw2x%2FSq3QRxPNhj2xf8w%2BXIH6YT88tbx5dPcm3rKgS3IS%2FQA&rqlang=cn&rsv_enter=1&rsv_dl=ts_1&rsv_sug3=1&rsv_sug1=1&rsv_sug7=100&rsv_sug2=1&rsv_btype=t&prefixsug=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsp=1&rsv_sug4=11634 (https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=3&rsv_bp=1&tn=cnopera&wd=我不喜欢穷的男人&oq=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsv_pq=ad47c81400021810&rsv_t=b160OSxOc8B2UnBw2x%2FSq3QRxPNhj2xf8w%2BXIH6YT88tbx5dPcm3rKgS3IS%2FQA&rqlang=cn&rsv_enter=1&rsv_dl=ts_1&rsv_sug3=1&rsv_sug1=1&rsv_sug7=100&rsv_sug2=1&rsv_btype=t&prefixsug=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsp=1&rsv_sug4=11634)
I never said being poor was not a big disadvantage in the dating market. I was saying that being poor was not as detrimental to the success of dating as being short/ugly was, and even though the magnitude of poorness is higher than the one of being short/ugly, the tall and handsome(or even just tall) but poor man still triumph over another rich but short and ugly(or even just short) man in dating.
This is not blackpilling, at least this aligns with the reality of dating in China.
-
for new generations, the weighs of height and face are way heavier than money.
I think for all generations good-looking is better for falling in love than just money. The problem is that new or old, no female will stay with you if you're homeless, you don't pay her bills at least A-A and you're not providing her. Some Chinese women even want you to give money to their parents. Try having a girl-friend in China only with height and face and see how long she's with you (if she start to at all). ;D ;D ;D
No, seriously, find a handsome dude and make him to invite a girl saying that he's jobless, not going to pay dinners and no car, only pure love, walking in the parks, sitting and talking at home and drinking home-made tea... See how many girls will say "No problem, 帅哥就够了啊！" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
And let Liam read how many Chinese females (from different generations) honestly are saying "I don't like poor males." ("我不喜欢穷的男人。"): https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=3&rsv_bp=1&tn=cnopera&wd=我不喜欢穷的男人&oq=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsv_pq=ad47c81400021810&rsv_t=b160OSxOc8B2UnBw2x%2FSq3QRxPNhj2xf8w%2BXIH6YT88tbx5dPcm3rKgS3IS%2FQA&rqlang=cn&rsv_enter=1&rsv_dl=ts_1&rsv_sug3=1&rsv_sug1=1&rsv_sug7=100&rsv_sug2=1&rsv_btype=t&prefixsug=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsp=1&rsv_sug4=11634 (https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=3&rsv_bp=1&tn=cnopera&wd=我不喜欢穷的男人&oq=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsv_pq=ad47c81400021810&rsv_t=b160OSxOc8B2UnBw2x%2FSq3QRxPNhj2xf8w%2BXIH6YT88tbx5dPcm3rKgS3IS%2FQA&rqlang=cn&rsv_enter=1&rsv_dl=ts_1&rsv_sug3=1&rsv_sug1=1&rsv_sug7=100&rsv_sug2=1&rsv_btype=t&prefixsug=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsp=1&rsv_sug4=11634)
I never said being poor was not a big disadvantage in the dating market. I was saying that being poor was not as detrimental to the success of dating as being short/ugly was, and even though the magnitude of poorness is higher than the one of being short/ugly, the tall and handsome(or even just tall) but poor man still triumph over another rich but short and ugly(or even just short) man in dating.
This is not blackpilling, at least this aligns with the reality of dating in China.
Oh I forgot to say, 'dating' does not equate 'marriage'. In the marriage market, the weigh of richness is way higher than the one in the dating market, but in the dating market, the weigh of richness is nearly zero, and dating is just a game which you win if you have good face and height and you lose if you have bad face and height, even if you are rich.
-
哲学家 was implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items
Here, this reminds me another Chinese young man who said that he should protect China against me because I told him I dislike the current president. For him "You said you don't like 1 Chinese man." = "You're against all China." ;D Here the logic flaw is similar -- I gave an EXAMPLE (double example) with a type/types of IQ questions and school subjects. (And it was: To know if someone answers well about "Which object comes next?" (like in this one: ) or to know how well a person learned the subject "Logic" (the logic marks) in school? Or to know that someone found where is the triangle out of the squares compared to know his/her "Geometry" marks?
) but the logic flaw brought us to the point where I am "implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items". ;D Liam, a quick question for you: if I say that "Rabbits are smaller than cars." are you making the conclusion that I am "implying" all the fauna has got only rabbits? :D
No, it's okay, I am not a specialist about the IQ tests. I majored in Philosophy (Bachelor's) and Philosophical Anthropology (Master's). I learn about the human intelligence, behavior, brain, relationship with the animals, emotions and so on, but we didn't go into details about the IQ tests so I do admit you know the matter much better. I only underline again that the point wasn't what you got -- the point was that when I want to understand better the intellect and the nature of a person, I choose to see his/her marks than his/her IQ test. The marks (if they're objective) can show me more than the IQ test. And you know why? Exactly because for the good grades you need: more knowledge, more hard work, more EQ, more motivation... and as you noticed "because he/she does not try"...
More, it's maybe true for some that "People tend to have a static IQ along the life after their intelligences finish developing", but I disagree that this is a rule for everybody. People who're active learners and do efforts may improve their intelligence more and more; it's "never finish". (Thinking of the IQ as static is very "a la black-pill": "no chance to improve", "it's over", "never begins" and other metaphysical, non-dialectical statements.)
Here some more articles about it: - The Fallacy Of A Fixed IQ (https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/iq-fixed-life.html) -- "... the way that we classify, categorize, taxonomize, and access knowledge can be improved as we age, and thus our IQ scores can definitely increase (and decrease, if we don’t keep our brains actively improving!)."
- William Klemm, Ph.D., is a senior professor of Neuroscience at Texas A&M University: No, Your IQ Is Not Constant (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/memory-medic/201805/no-your-iq-is-not-constant)
They correlate with each other of course but not strongly, at least not as strongly as many people think that if you have high grades your IQ is high, or only if your IQ is high you can have high grades.
This you got right. Nobody is saying that "IQ test = grades", we're talking about the correlations, the overlapping. Higher IQ --> better chance for higher grades --> reinforcing the IQ (see Pygmalion effect) It's like the money, height and face: being rich doesn't provide you 100% high success rate but being poor (like carless, homeless, etc.) decreases your chances of having a love partner nearly 100%, hence the money is a necessity nowadays because in the capitalistic world (or neofeudal in some parts, but the money also matters there) the females are materialistic and clever enough to avoid getting trapped in poverty. A money-maxxed Melvin has more chances to get a partner than a beggar Chad. And from the other perspective -- being tall and handsome provides you more initial opportunities to find some better income, to be more welcomed for better jobs, etc. Here we have also got this reinforcement, correlation and so on.
IQcels have more excuses to be suffering from inferior complexities.
If they're high IQcel, then they can use all this insecurities (inferiority complexes) as a motivation to self-improve themselves. For example, I was afraid I am too slim (some honest girls told me) and I started to gain weight. Later when I was too fat, there were new honest girls who said that I have to lose weight and to build muscle mass and there I am: gym-maxxed myself, sport-maxxing non-stop... or when I felt I don't know enough 汉字（Chinese characters）, I just started to learn more (every day 1-2 new characters) and now my Chinese already is already around "HSK 4" level. The moroncels and other low IQ males who were in bad shape and who didn't know Chinese well, now are the same ugly-bodied men (dad-bod types) and their Chinese level is only "HSK 1"... So, as you can see, if you try harder and never stop, the results are showing up, gradually.
Ah, sorry I think I shoulda read what you had written completely. I was kinda suffering from ADHD so I could not toil through a sesquipedalian oration.
But, those articles you introduced me to do not refute what I said. The change of child's brain structure and IQ derive from the more reliance on his/her genes, and cognitive training can increase your cognitive abilities but not your general intelligence('g').
Here is an analogy to help you understand what I am saying:
Let's coin a concept 'Sport Intelligence' to stand for the common variance in your performances of all of sports, and I ask you to run, jump and lift-up to produce a quotient score that correlates with Sport Intelligence to some degree, and ok you've done badly on all of them and get a 70, which indicates your sport intelligence is low, and signifies you are innately very disadvantageous in the common variance in the performances of all of sports. And you go on a training to improve your performances in running, jumping and lifting up. This DOES NOT salvage your disadvantage in the COMMON VARIANCE, but just your SPECIFIC VARIANCES in the specific sport tasks(running jumping and lifting up), namely increasing the specific variances does not equate increasing the common variance, and the former is just correlated to the later.
It's analogous to 'increasing' your intelligence. You can train your memory, your matrix reasoning, your information, you name it, but still you can't increase your general intelligence, which is the common variance in all of the cognitive tasks.
To summarize, there are two major epistemological flaws contained by the articles you gave me:
1. They confused common variance with specific variances
2. They contributed the change in the brain structure to the increasing of intelligence instead of more reliance on genes.
I am kinda surprised a reputed professor in Neuroscience could commit such tremendous felonies, huh maybe that's another example why IQ does matter(he said his IQ was modest) lol? jk
Anyway I am not blackpilling. We gotta concede this world is totally unfair and the revelation of unfairness is not blackpilling, but the skewness of reality is.
The 'correlation' means, that two things are correlated with each other, but that does not necessarily mean if you increase one side the other side will increase in tandem. IQ tests measure your cognitive abilities as the indicators of your g, and they are correlated with g, but increasing the indicators does not increase the construct that is indicated. Training the indicators is thus distinct from training the general intelligence.
-
哲学家 was implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items
Here, this reminds me another Chinese young man who said that he should protect China against me because I told him I dislike the current president. For him "You said you don't like 1 Chinese man." = "You're against all China." ;D Here the logic flaw is similar -- I gave an EXAMPLE (double example) with a type/types of IQ questions and school subjects. (And it was: To know if someone answers well about "Which object comes next?" (like in this one: ) or to know how well a person learned the subject "Logic" (the logic marks) in school? Or to know that someone found where is the triangle out of the squares compared to know his/her "Geometry" marks?
) but the logic flaw brought us to the point where I am "implying IQ test only has pattern-recognization items". ;D Liam, a quick question for you: if I say that "Rabbits are smaller than cars." are you making the conclusion that I am "implying" all the fauna has got only rabbits? :D
No, it's okay, I am not a specialist about the IQ tests. I majored in Philosophy (Bachelor's) and Philosophical Anthropology (Master's). I learn about the human intelligence, behavior, brain, relationship with the animals, emotions and so on, but we didn't go into details about the IQ tests so I do admit you know the matter much better. I only underline again that the point wasn't what you got -- the point was that when I want to understand better the intellect and the nature of a person, I choose to see his/her marks than his/her IQ test. The marks (if they're objective) can show me more than the IQ test. And you know why? Exactly because for the good grades you need: more knowledge, more hard work, more EQ, more motivation... and as you noticed "because he/she does not try"...
More, it's maybe true for some that "People tend to have a static IQ along the life after their intelligences finish developing", but I disagree that this is a rule for everybody. People who're active learners and do efforts may improve their intelligence more and more; it's "never finish". (Thinking of the IQ as static is very "a la black-pill": "no chance to improve", "it's over", "never begins" and other metaphysical, non-dialectical statements.)
Here some more articles about it: - The Fallacy Of A Fixed IQ (https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/iq-fixed-life.html) -- "... the way that we classify, categorize, taxonomize, and access knowledge can be improved as we age, and thus our IQ scores can definitely increase (and decrease, if we don’t keep our brains actively improving!)."
- William Klemm, Ph.D., is a senior professor of Neuroscience at Texas A&M University: No, Your IQ Is Not Constant (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/memory-medic/201805/no-your-iq-is-not-constant)
They correlate with each other of course but not strongly, at least not as strongly as many people think that if you have high grades your IQ is high, or only if your IQ is high you can have high grades.
This you got right. Nobody is saying that "IQ test = grades", we're talking about the correlations, the overlapping. Higher IQ --> better chance for higher grades --> reinforcing the IQ (see Pygmalion effect) It's like the money, height and face: being rich doesn't provide you 100% high success rate but being poor (like carless, homeless, etc.) decreases your chances of having a love partner nearly 100%, hence the money is a necessity nowadays because in the capitalistic world (or neofeudal in some parts, but the money also matters there) the females are materialistic and clever enough to avoid getting trapped in poverty. A money-maxxed Melvin has more chances to get a partner than a beggar Chad. And from the other perspective -- being tall and handsome provides you more initial opportunities to find some better income, to be more welcomed for better jobs, etc. Here we have also got this reinforcement, correlation and so on.
IQcels have more excuses to be suffering from inferior complexities.
If they're high IQcel, then they can use all this insecurities (inferiority complexes) as a motivation to self-improve themselves. For example, I was afraid I am too slim (some honest girls told me) and I started to gain weight. Later when I was too fat, there were new honest girls who said that I have to lose weight and to build muscle mass and there I am: gym-maxxed myself, sport-maxxing non-stop... or when I felt I don't know enough 汉字（Chinese characters）, I just started to learn more (every day 1-2 new characters) and now my Chinese already is already around "HSK 4" level. The moroncels and other low IQ males who were in bad shape and who didn't know Chinese well, now are the same ugly-bodied men (dad-bod types) and their Chinese level is only "HSK 1"... So, as you can see, if you try harder and never stop, the results are showing up, gradually.
Ah, sorry I think I shoulda read what you had written completely. I was kinda suffering from ADHD so I could not toil through a sesquipedalian oration.
But, those articles you introduced me to do not refute what I said. The change of child's brain structure and IQ derive from the more reliance on his/her genes, and cognitive training can increase your cognitive abilities but not your general intelligence('g').
Here is an analogy to help you understand what I am saying:
Let's coin a concept 'Sport Intelligence' to stand for the common variance in your performances of all of sports, and I ask you to run, jump and lift-up to produce a quotient score that correlates with Sport Intelligence to some degree, and ok you've done badly on all of them and get a 70, which indicates your sport intelligence is low, and signifies you are innately very disadvantageous in the common variance in the performances of all of sports. And you go on a training to improve your performances in running, jumping and lifting up. This DOES NOT salvage your disadvantage in the COMMON VARIANCE, but just your SPECIFIC VARIANCES in the specific sport tasks(running jumping and lifting up), namely increasing the specific variances does not equate increasing the common variance, and the former is just correlated to the later.
It's analogous to 'increasing' your intelligence. You can train your memory, your matrix reasoning, your information, you name it, but still you can't increase your general intelligence, which is the common variance in all of the cognitive tasks.
To summarize, there are two major epistemological flaws contained by the articles you gave me:
1. They confused common variance with specific variances
2. They contributed the change in the brain structure to the increasing of intelligence instead of more reliance on genes.
I am kinda surprised a reputed professor in Neuroscience could commit such tremendous felonies, huh maybe that's another example why IQ does matter(he said his IQ was modest) lol? jk
Anyway I am not blackpilling. We gotta concede this world is totally unfair and the revelation of unfairness is not blackpilling, but the skewness of reality is.
The 'correlation' means, that two things are correlated with each other, but that does not necessarily mean if you increase one side the other side will increase in tandem. IQ tests measure your cognitive abilities as the indicators of your g, and they are correlated with g, but increasing the indicators does not increase the construct that is indicated. Training the indicators is thus distinct from training the general intelligence.
One empirical evidence is that, no matter how rigorously you get trained on the matrix reasoning, the training will not boost your performance on the visual puzzle at all. If the common variance is really increased, then your performance on the visual puzzle will also be increased in tandem with the one on matrix reasoning but the truth is not like this. This means you just increase the specific variance.
-
If there was some average incel or just another normie I guess they'll start with: "LOL, you think you know better than the professors? Just shut up.", but I am ready to accept that you maybe know better or you even can discover something new or invent something new. Therefor I will be glad to discuss it more (and to learn new things because you're deeply learning this matter and you're sort of professional.)
Here, some questions for thinking:
The change of child's brain structure and IQ derive from the more reliance on his/her genes, and cognitive training can increase your cognitive abilities but not your general intelligence('g').
If you increase your cognitive abilities, your knowledge, culture and so on, at one moment, isn't this summing up to a higher level of the general intelligence? Like in economy -- only improvement of one sector and one town doesn't lead to general improvement of the economy, but when you improve more sectors + more towns + receive investments, in one point, the general economical situation (GDP and GDP per capita, let's say) will also get improved. They confused common variance with specific variances
Even so, isn't it enough once you are able to improve all the specific variances you need? The overall intelligence should also be impacted. How this common variance can stay out of the dialectical law that after certain point the quantitative change turn into qualitative change, like water and cold -- more cold, colder and colder and in one moment the water is already ice. Or add heat, hotter and hotter, the ice is back to water and if you continue this the water is converted into vapor.
How to accept that even if you improve 20 or 30 specific variances your common variance is still the same. At the end of the day, that common variance is "common" because it's made of (or consists) the sum of the specific ones.- According to your current understanding of the IQ, answer me this interesting question: if there are 2 men (let's say twins or brothers) who have identical (or very similar) general IQ and the first one just start to live isolated in the jungle (like a Tarzan or a Mowgli) and reading nothing, watching nothing online, talking with nobody, and the second one is learning hard in Oxford, reading books, watching philosophy and science online, talking to educated people... after 5 years when you test them, is there going to be a different result?
I think the result will be very different because the men who grow up in the jungle will even can't know what's the difference between a square and a rectangle, so he can't understand even the question about how many squares are there in a picture full of squares and rectangles. But the Oxford brother will answer many of the questions immediately just because he already dealt with them before or because he is the author of some of them. :) We gotta concede this world is totally unfair and the revelation of unfairness is not blackpilling
No, no. Look, the blackpilling aspect is if someone is a fatalistic and pessimistic, i. e. when thinks that everything is given and static and nothing is in motion, there is no development, there is only regress and there are no opportunities. It's just a very strong determinism in the best case, in the worst it's a kind of fatalism.
The meta view (taking into account) all of the pills (points of view) and selecting/seeing the right, the semi-right or semi-wrong, and the wrong is what the scientific philosophy do. When it comes to the concrete IQ it's the same -- if there are people who're telling you that everything is genetics and there is no way to change or improve at least a little, obviously it's blackpillism, fatalism, fatalistic biologization, etc. Also, if there is someone who'll say that we're all equal, the genes doesn't matter and it's only up to our efforts, it's another radical uneducated view, which is bluepilled, radically indeterministic, etc. because it's obvious that some people from the early childhood are more gifted than others. this world is totally unfair
Even so, we can't conclude that everything is strongly deterministic, fatalistic and there is no room for improvement. In some cases, yes, there are these 100% genetically given things like color of the eyes, form of the ears and so on. But there are also not that genetically influenced things like are you going to be fat or not; yes, some people may burn calories slower than others or something like this, but if you keep low-calorie diet and if you do the right sports no matter how easy you get fat, you're not going to be a fat person. The muscles -- well, there are people who're luckier, because of the better frame, they just genetically have got the bigger bones, bigger muscles and some of them do build muscles easier but there is no person who try to gym-maxx and take the right food and drinks and stays the same all the time. At least 1 cm gain you will have at some point.
-
for new generations, the weighs of height and face are way heavier than money.
I think for all generations good-looking is better for falling in love than just money. The problem is that new or old, no female will stay with you if you're homeless, you don't pay her bills at least A-A and you're not providing her. Some Chinese women even want you to give money to their parents. Try having a girl-friend in China only with height and face and see how long she's with you (if she start to at all). ;D ;D ;D
No, seriously, find a handsome dude and make him to invite a girl saying that he's jobless, not going to pay dinners and no car, only pure love, walking in the parks, sitting and talking at home and drinking home-made tea... See how many girls will say "No problem, 帅哥就够了啊！" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
And let Liam read how many Chinese females (from different generations) honestly are saying "I don't like poor males." ("我不喜欢穷的男人。"): https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=3&rsv_bp=1&tn=cnopera&wd=我不喜欢穷的男人&oq=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsv_pq=ad47c81400021810&rsv_t=b160OSxOc8B2UnBw2x%2FSq3QRxPNhj2xf8w%2BXIH6YT88tbx5dPcm3rKgS3IS%2FQA&rqlang=cn&rsv_enter=1&rsv_dl=ts_1&rsv_sug3=1&rsv_sug1=1&rsv_sug7=100&rsv_sug2=1&rsv_btype=t&prefixsug=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsp=1&rsv_sug4=11634 (https://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=3&rsv_bp=1&tn=cnopera&wd=我不喜欢穷的男人&oq=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsv_pq=ad47c81400021810&rsv_t=b160OSxOc8B2UnBw2x%2FSq3QRxPNhj2xf8w%2BXIH6YT88tbx5dPcm3rKgS3IS%2FQA&rqlang=cn&rsv_enter=1&rsv_dl=ts_1&rsv_sug3=1&rsv_sug1=1&rsv_sug7=100&rsv_sug2=1&rsv_btype=t&prefixsug=%25E6%2588%2591%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2596%259C%25E6%25AC%25A2%25E7%25A9%25B7&rsp=1&rsv_sug4=11634)
I never said being poor was not a big disadvantage in the dating market. I was saying that being poor was not as detrimental to the success of dating as being short/ugly was, and even though the magnitude of poorness is higher than the one of being short/ugly, the tall and handsome(or even just tall) but poor man still triumph over another rich but short and ugly(or even just short) man in dating.
This is not blackpilling, at least this aligns with the reality of dating in China.
How you can say so especially about China, when everybody knows that the majority of the Chinese females are very money-oriented, travel-oriented, they need a lot of money for everything; some of them even spend 500 for a hairdresser...
Of course, you can keep your opinion and I am not trying to change it, but I want to say to all others who're reading it, that the Chinese females (and most of the others) can't stand a poor man and dislike to live in poverty; if there are two man: one handsome and tall but poor and one average but rich, at the end of the day, they'll choose the rich one. Oh, you can call it beta-buxxing or whatever, but this is it.
I strongly suggest everyone to pretend being very poor and to see if there will be a female who'll agree to date a man who can't take her to a cafe, don't drive a bike or another vehicle, don't pay for movies, don't pay for anything and they just have love relationship talking about games, poems, history, art during their long walks beside the river, around the lake, etc. ;D ;D ;D
In a word: if you take 100 poor Chads and 100 really rich men, there will be almost 90% of the Chads without girlfriends (maybe some, around 10%, may get some short-term, like one-night-stand but not more if they're not hell lucky to find some unicorn girl who will be enough rich to say "I will pay all, you just be a Chad!") and there will be almost 90% of the rich men who will have a wife or at least some lover (called "小三") for beta-buxxing. It's a common knowledge that "rich = there are women" except for those who're living around the same rich women (which means they're relatively not rich), i. e. geo-minned males or those who're really something like 0.5/10 to 2/10... A 3/10 rich man (not a midgetcel, not a disabledcel, etc.) is already blessed because almost everywhere he can get at least one Becky. Can't say the same about the poor Chads who even can't geomaxx and have to stay forever in their villages where most of the people are males too.
In a ideal world, where the females aren't materialistic and don't care about the money and somehow don't care even being poor, homeless and starving - yes, only the looks and the height is enough to attract some or many; but in this capitalistic and/or neo-feudal society being rich enough is a good base but just being handsome and tall, isn't. Can you see some single billionaire? Show me at least one.
-
'dating' does not equate 'marriage'.
True. But if you're poor (don't pay her bills and can't support her travels or something, depends on how greedy is she. There was one who said he was happy to find a girl who charge him only to pay for her books, but there are girls who'll say you should pay 100%, including her feet massage or her new expensive dress) you're not seen as a dating material at all.
I know you're relatively rich, from the high class districts in the high class city (Shanghai) and you never experienced things like being so poor that you have to eat only 1 egg a day and the best gift you can make to a girl is a pencil drawn picture on a small notebook paper.
Do you know that there are girls that after the first date they're leaving because you pay only for bus transportation, not for taxi? I bet you (or the males around you) can't imagine it because they have own cars and even don't need to think about taxis. But if one day you get poorer you'll realize what is the biggest problem (and why the world has Marx and Engels -- because the poverty, the exploitation is/are the biggest issue).
So, if she is leaving you because you have no car, of course, she is not going to marry you too. Ohhhhhhhhhh, especially if she is from those places where you should pay her family too (something like "monthly tax" that you're having their daughter). ;D
No good face or good height can save you if you're not fulfilling her expectations of being a donor (spending money non-stop, because "You are a man and you have to.") I saw people from the West also said that in some places there are poor Chads who're becoming poorcels because they're carless, jobless, etc. and the females prefer to date a rich Norman than a poor Chad.
In a word, you think "uglycel < poorcel" but I think "poorcel < uglycel" and "poorcel < almost all of the rest".
For all those who never dated, I want to make a simple math here:
Imagine that you're meeting only 10 times a month. Every date costs around RMB 200 at least (like a simple dinner for RMB 90 + a movie ticket for RMB 100 and something like RMB 10 for the transportation.) It's RMB 2000 per month in the better cases! What if your salary is just RMB 3000? How you'll pay your food, your bills, your rent?... What if she insist you to be more "大方" (generous) and to pay her some money for clothes, nails, more expensive restaurants? I will tell you, it's already RMB 6000 per month (many Chinese people have no this income).
So, if you're poor, don't think at all about starting dating because you'll be insulted for being not a "true man" or just politely left and ghosted for being incapable to pay according her expectations (and previous experience).
-
The 'correlation' means, that two things are correlated with each other, but that does not necessarily mean if you increase one side the other side will increase in tandem. IQ tests measure your cognitive abilities as the indicators of your g, and they are correlated with g, but increasing the indicators does not increase the construct that is indicated. Training the indicators is thus distinct from training the general intelligence.
The question remains that if you increase more and more, there should be one point where there will become some increase, this is the law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes.
Concretely, if Ana and Mary are twin sisters and Marry never goes to school but Ana goes and reads 400 good books in her life after 10 years is Ana's IQ higher than Mary's or they remain the same?
Well, I want to also to know "how do you train the general intelligence?" and how is it different than training the "indicators"? (Just to learn something new.)
-
One empirical evidence is that, no matter how rigorously you get trained on the matrix reasoning, the training will not boost your performance on the visual puzzle at all. If the common variance is really increased, then your performance on the visual puzzle will also be increased in tandem with the one on matrix reasoning but the truth is not like this. This means you just increase the specific variance.
I don't know is that an empirical evidence and if there is a research about it but let's assume you're well informed and it's true. Okay, then here comes the last question for today (I am pretty sure many incels and others will be interested to know your answer:) If the common IQ is static, does it mean that your learning, reading, studying and so on, don't increase it at all? And if so, why usually people who read, study and learn are more intelligent than those who don't read, don't study and don't learn?
-
The 'correlation' means, that two things are correlated with each other, but that does not necessarily mean if you increase one side the other side will increase in tandem. IQ tests measure your cognitive abilities as the indicators of your g, and they are correlated with g, but increasing the indicators does not increase the construct that is indicated. Training the indicators is thus distinct from training the general intelligence.
The question remains that if you increase more and more, there should be one point where there will become some increase, this is the law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes.
Concretely, if Ana and Mary are twin sisters and Marry never goes to school but Ana goes and reads 400 good books in her life after 10 years is Ana's IQ higher than Mary's or they remain the same?
Well, I want to also to know "how do you train the general intelligence?" and how is it different than training the "indicators"? (Just to learn something new.)
I think I have already elucidated everything about 'how is it differnt from training the indicators' above.
As for how to train the general intelligence, currently the professionals have yet to figure out any method. The only way is to keep yourself healthy to suffer from less discline of IQ thus your IQ will 'increase'.
And, whether I am saying is correct or not is not dependent of whether what I am saying is demonstrated by a professional or not, not to mention what I am saying is just the viewpoint of the psychometric professonals.
The factors you are entailing are part of the reason why the g-loading of IQ test can never be 1.0, and one of the factors that determine the magnitude of the diminishing returns of g-loading(Search 'Spearman's Law of the Diminishing Returns), because knowledge is delimited from intelligence, and the reason why IQ test measures your IQ by knowledge-loaded items is that although knowledge is not intelligence, but they are correlated because how well you can apply the obtained knowledges and retain them needs intelligence.(This is just Crystallized Intelligence) The reason why crystallized items suffer from more SLODR as the abilities increase than fluid items is because knowledge is not intelligence. When there are other unexpected variables adulterating the variances, the loading on the expected factor will for sure be lower, compared to the same context without the unexpected variables in question.
Of course troglodyte has significantly lower average IQ than aristocrat whatsoever, but education, reading, you name it, never really boost your intelligence very much, because general intelligence is 91% genetic and only 9% environmental.
Increasing all of the specific variances to increase general intelligence still remains to become pragmatic by scientific methods. I only heard of a lab that embarked on the development of the technology that could increase general intelligence and the outcome was that the increase was unsignificant and it was just temporary.
But don't get upset. IQ does not correlate with life outcomes as highly as some high IQ megalomaniacs are blackpilling. The correlation analysises never implicated that as long as your IQ is not 125, you can't be a physics student. The dynamics is not singularly factored, but admittedly we can't negate the effect of IQ. I think as long as your IQ is not really low like 90 for physics, you will surely be eligible to be an academic in it.
-
I want to confirm that even when it happens to pass the looks treshold, the nationality treshold, the age treshold, the height treshold, then still if the female realizes you're not rich, she is very "No!"
There was one who liked me (all those nationality, looks, etc.) but when she got that I can't take her to restaurants every day, she said that I am "What a joke!" or something and never talk to me again.
DON'T miss my FREE E-BOOK and read about the Rejection#1, it's VERY RELATED: Free E-book "500 Rejections" (http://www.seo-forum-seo-luntan.com/psychology/500-rejections/msg45344/#msg45344)
-
I want to confirm that even when it happens to pass the looks treshold, the nationality treshold, the age treshold, the height treshold, then still if the female realizes you're not rich, she is very "No!"
There was one who liked me (all those nationality, looks, etc.) but when she got that I can't take her to restaurants every day, she said that I am "What a joke!" or something and never talk to me again.
DON'T miss my FREE E-BOOK and read about the Rejection#1, it's VERY RELATED: Free E-book "500 Rejections" (http://www.seo-forum-seo-luntan.com/psychology/500-rejections/msg45344/#msg45344)
Since you're male. Being short is considered bad but since I'm female. Being short is apparently considered "godly".
-
Yes. In most of the countries around the world the short females are considered very cute and/or sexy or at least normal people. Not an issue for a girl/woman at all if you haven't some severe problem to bother you.
And still, tell the guy above that if he get rich and he's with good personality there will be a woman for him. He's so depressed that he's 1.64 and not enough good looking. Tell him that all rich and good-hearted man surely can find at least one girl to accept them without worry that they're short or not 10/10 handsome.
(I mean our Liam brocel. He's a cool brocel, isn't he?)
-
Money really isn't a thing some people worry about. Just wait and you'll find a girl who will love you no matter what <3
-
Money really isn't a thing some people worry about. Just wait and you'll find a girl who will love you no matter what <3
No, you got it a bit wrong. See how it is, the cutie Liam thinks he's too short (164 cm) and he's not handsome (I think he is handsome but it's another story :D) and then, the other men telling him that he's rich and it's more important. Because you know it, if he is a homeless there will not be girl to live with him homelessly... and because he is rich and has good personality there will be a girl who will love him. But of course there aren't so many "no matter what" ones. ;)
-
Hehe, yeah, of course a guy from rich qu (区) in Shanghai and a girl from rich country in Scandinavia will underestimate the money (because they have it) and for them the things like height, looks, personality, education, gaming skills and others will be more important. But the true pictute is that as long as most of the people like us aren't rich, most of us have to think first about money. I am a male and I want a Beauty, a Stacy, okay? But if there is a richer Becky who will make me better, safer, cooler and happier, let it the Becky. This is how it works. 8)
-
As for how to train the general intelligence, currently the professionals have yet to figure out any method.
So, reading and learning, communicating with intelligent people, watching scientific videos and so on, aren't consider a method by the professionals? ;D Still, how to explain it that people who read and learn more, are usually, more intelligent than those who're just playing games and eating? :)
The only way is to keep yourself healthy to suffer from less decline of IQ thus your IQ will 'increase'.
It's a way but I don't think it's the only way. Even a challenged kid (let's say above the imbecile level) is able to increase its intelligence via the oligophrenopedagogy, which is coming to show that the average IQ people via education may have real chances to improve their intelligence.
How a person raised by wolves or monkeys is the same intelligent as a person who is attending university classes just because their DNA is the same?! Impossible. The practice shows that the education and the training improves a lot. Even an animal -- a kid (goat's baby) or a puppy will become more intelligent if it's around teaching and caring animals, people and others. For example, a monkey can learn how to use a soap if you teach it but if you didn't it will not use it.
The more primitive organisms like snakes rely mostly on their DNA but the more evolved like the monkeys, the apes, the humans, they need socialization, practice, learning and in this way they increase their fuller potentials of IQ, EQ and others.
"And, whether I am saying is correct or not is not dependent of whether what I am saying is demonstrated by a professional or not, not to mention what I am saying is just the viewpoint of the psychometric professionals." You just prove it well enough and we'll believe it. Of course we, as scientists, want more verifications, studies, etc., but if you're a person who just have his own good proves, it's okay. I mean, we don't need to be formalistic.
The law of diminishing returns is a good mention. Let me add a simple image of it for the people who never learned it: (https://ts1.cn.mm.bing.net/th/id/R-C.1986a523eecc04912f1eb72d89c6235b?rik=imWNUSNy9aPBng&riu=http%3a%2f%2fskinnyfattransformation.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2013%2f05%2flaw-of-diminishing-returns1.jpg&ehk=eHAgWDpi0QOc7VXTYFKofHci566zVvGe%2b9W3dPMdnmA%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0). If the concrete (Spearman's) is something different, let's know.
This law shows that the efforts (quantity) leads to results (quality).
because knowledge is delimited from intelligence
Look, it's a philosophical problem -- how you will define the knowledge and the intelligence. There are and can be different definitions of them. And according to the definitions they will overlaping or be equal, or be different.
For example, to answer an IQ test question correctly you have to know how to, you have to have some kind of knowledge. Another example, if you know some fact, like "Tibetan language (藏语) is related to Chinese language (汉语) because they're from the same, Sino-Tibetan language family (汉藏语系)." can be considered as intelligence because most of the people around the world don't even know what's Tibetan, where is Tiber, what languages are Tibetans able to speak and understand, what is their native language and so on.
although knowledge is not intelligence, but they are correlated because how well you can apply the obtained knowledges and retain them needs intelligence
So, according to this, the intelligence is an ability and the knowledges are the tools of that ability? Something like the situation with the emperor-like person who is using the main party in his country as a tool? Am a correct?
This is just Crystallized Intelligence.
Here we have to explain this definition: this theory (fluid intelligence versus crystallized intelligence) was first proposed by psychologist Raymond Cattell who further developed it along with his student John Horn. The theory suggests that intelligence is composed of different abilities that interact and work together to produce overall individual intelligence. (https://www.verywellmind.com/thmb/1dhzdo_vP9KQ5fS3dmgZUNnZL1U=/750x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/fluid-intelligence-vs-crystallized-intelligence-2795004_color2-5b69d275c9e77c0050ba7290.png)
When there are other unexpected variables adulterating the variances, the loading on the expected factor will for sure be lower, compared to the same context without the unexpected variables in question.
Of course! "unexpected < expected" but what's the point here?
but education, reading, you name it, never really boost your intelligence very much, because general intelligence is 91% genetic and only 9% environmental.
And here, exactly here, you need to provide studies which measured it. Everybody can say that it's 91:9 or 1:99, why not 50:50? Who proves that the genetics vs. environmental is only 91/9? Huh? Yes, we may guess the genetics is the base and maybe it's at least 50% or more. (That's why I strongly disagree when the parents or school owners blame only the teachers for the results -- they postulate that the students are all equally gifted and with the same IQ, the same genetics. It's really wrong! And that's one of the reason, empirically to say that I do agree that the genetics is 50% or more! But 91% looks too much and, yes, it looks still possible, but give me the sources of such a serious claim.)
IQ does not correlate with life outcomes as highly as some high IQ megalomaniacs are blackpilling.
Here comes the EQ and other types of "Q" that are sometimes or often neglected and, also, other factors (like the capital, the relationships, the background, the popularity and many others). There are so many low IQ-ed and average IQ-ed successful man and women, of course the life outcomes are not very correlated with the IQ and even with the marks in school (which are a better mirror of your IQ and EQ) and your overall knowledge.
-
On purpose （故意的, in Chinese）I am adding this one here to make it more clear: is the autism-maxx (autismmaxx) really a maxxing thing?
Okay, let's say as a joke or a humorous element of the inceldom and incels' communities it may be sort of valuable stuff but... is it a maxxing or a minning?
Every incelologist and almost every incel, I believe, will say that a -maxx thing is something that at least can slightly increase your chances to ascend (or at least to be considered as a more attractive person or a dating material). Are there many females who like autists? I doubt it. If a female is an autist herself she is not going to say/think/feel "Hey! I want to date only autist guys!". In the better cases she can be like "Yes, they're humans too, we can't ignore them for being autistic, I am an autist myself!" but still... it's like the case with the short women when they may be okay with a short guys but also they may be not okay ("Hey, I am short so I don't need another short here! I want at least my kid to be tall so I am longing for a tall man!")
So, Liam, what's that autism-maxx thing?
According to some study (not sure how representative it is): - only 7.7% of this high functioning autistic cohort reported having had a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, and 1.5% with someone of the same sex.
- only 1.5% of the group had sex.
So, if the percentage is something around it (or even double like -- 3% of the autists are ascending and 15%+ of the autists are in relationships), then what's that autism-maxx kind of maxxing?! It's like saying "short-maxx" or "poor-maxx", isn't it? When the majority of the females do avoid autists, short man and poor man, how you can use this disadvantages to self-maxx yourself with them?!
-
As for how to train the general intelligence, currently the professionals have yet to figure out any method.
So, reading and learning, communicating with intelligent people, watching scientific videos and so on, aren't consider a method by the professionals? ;D Still, how to explain it that people who read and learn more, are usually, more intelligent than those who're just playing games and eating? :)
The only way is to keep yourself healthy to suffer from less decline of IQ thus your IQ will 'increase'.
It's a way but I don't think it's the only way. Even a challenged kid (let's say above the imbecile level) is able to increase its intelligence via the oligophrenopedagogy, which is coming to show that the average IQ people via education may have real chances to improve their intelligence.
How a person raised by wolves or monkeys is the same intelligent as a person who is attending university classes just because their DNA is the same?! Impossible. The practice shows that the education and the training improves a lot. Even an animal -- a kid (goat's baby) or a puppy will become more intelligent if it's around teaching and caring animals, people and others. For example, a monkey can learn how to use a soap if you teach it but if you didn't it will not use it.
The more primitive organisms like snakes rely mostly on their DNA but the more evolved like the monkeys, the apes, the humans, they need socialization, practice, learning and in this way they increase their fuller potentials of IQ, EQ and others.
"And, whether I am saying is correct or not is not dependent of whether what I am saying is demonstrated by a professional or not, not to mention what I am saying is just the viewpoint of the psychometric professionals." You just prove it well enough and we'll believe it. Of course we, as scientists, want more verifications, studies, etc., but if you're a person who just have his own good proves, it's okay. I mean, we don't need to be formalistic.
The law of diminishing returns is a good mention. Let me add a simple image of it for the people who never learned it: (https://ts1.cn.mm.bing.net/th/id/R-C.1986a523eecc04912f1eb72d89c6235b?rik=imWNUSNy9aPBng&riu=http%3a%2f%2fskinnyfattransformation.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2013%2f05%2flaw-of-diminishing-returns1.jpg&ehk=eHAgWDpi0QOc7VXTYFKofHci566zVvGe%2b9W3dPMdnmA%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0). If the concrete (Spearman's) is something different, let's know.
This law shows that the efforts (quantity) leads to results (quality).
because knowledge is delimited from intelligence
Look, it's a philosophical problem -- how you will define the knowledge and the intelligence. There are and can be different definitions of them. And according to the definitions they will overlaping or be equal, or be different.
For example, to answer an IQ test question correctly you have to know how to, you have to have some kind of knowledge. Another example, if you know some fact, like "Tibetan language (藏语) is related to Chinese language (汉语) because they're from the same, Sino-Tibetan language family (汉藏语系)." can be considered as intelligence because most of the people around the world don't even know what's Tibetan, where is Tiber, what languages are Tibetans able to speak and understand, what is their native language and so on.
although knowledge is not intelligence, but they are correlated because how well you can apply the obtained knowledges and retain them needs intelligence
So, according to this, the intelligence is an ability and the knowledges are the tools of that ability? Something like the situation with the emperor-like person who is using the main party in his country as a tool? Am a correct?
This is just Crystallized Intelligence.
Here we have to explain this definition: this theory (fluid intelligence versus crystallized intelligence) was first proposed by psychologist Raymond Cattell who further developed it along with his student John Horn. The theory suggests that intelligence is composed of different abilities that interact and work together to produce overall individual intelligence. (https://www.verywellmind.com/thmb/1dhzdo_vP9KQ5fS3dmgZUNnZL1U=/750x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/fluid-intelligence-vs-crystallized-intelligence-2795004_color2-5b69d275c9e77c0050ba7290.png)
When there are other unexpected variables adulterating the variances, the loading on the expected factor will for sure be lower, compared to the same context without the unexpected variables in question.
Of course! "unexpected < expected" but what's the point here?
but education, reading, you name it, never really boost your intelligence very much, because general intelligence is 91% genetic and only 9% environmental.
And here, exactly here, you need to provide studies which measured it. Everybody can say that it's 91:9 or 1:99, why not 50:50? Who proves that the genetics vs. environmental is only 91/9? Huh? Yes, we may guess the genetics is the base and maybe it's at least 50% or more. (That's why I strongly disagree when the parents or school owners blame only the teachers for the results -- they postulate that the students are all equally gifted and with the same IQ, the same genetics. It's really wrong! And that's one of the reason, empirically to say that I do agree that the genetics is 50% or more! But 91% looks too much and, yes, it looks still possible, but give me the sources of such a serious claim.)
IQ does not correlate with life outcomes as highly as some high IQ megalomaniacs are blackpilling.
Here comes the EQ and other types of "Q" that are sometimes or often neglected and, also, other factors (like the capital, the relationships, the background, the popularity and many others). There are so many low IQ-ed and average IQ-ed successful man and women, of course the life outcomes are not very correlated with the IQ and even with the marks in school (which are a better mirror of your IQ and EQ) and your overall knowledge.
I think you are just tautologically throwing this question 'Why do people with decent education have higher average IQ than those with awful education' since I have already unravelled it by answering 'IQ test does not have a 1.0 g-loading partly because there is an unexpected variable Knowledge as one of the unexpected interplays on the score of test', and just because Knowledge is unexpected, and since crystallized items are more knowledge-loaded, they suffer from Spearman's Law of Diminishing Returns, partly contributed by the interplay of Knowledge.
Psychometrically speaking, intelligence(general intelligence) is a latent factor underlying all of cognitive tasks.
Neurologically speaking, intelligence is the efficacy of the function of the neurological pathway of all of cognitive tasks.
I can't use too professsional termonologies here since I myself do not know very much about this topic.
But one thing that I can tell you is, knowledge is obviously delimited from intelligence. Knowledge is just your storage of informations, but of course knowledge is correlated with intelligence.
And, the statement that g is 91% genetic and 9% environmental can be easily googled:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Genetic_and_environmental_determinants
(PS: I found out I overestimated the reliance of g factor on genetics)
Crystallized intelligence does not equate knowledge btw. It is your ability of the application of knowledge.. That is why by the factor analysis, you can see verbal subtests for ex are loaded on Gc(crystallized intelligence)
-
As for how to train the general intelligence, currently the professionals have yet to figure out any method.
So, reading and learning, communicating with intelligent people, watching scientific videos and so on, aren't consider a method by the professionals? ;D Still, how to explain it that people who read and learn more, are usually, more intelligent than those who're just playing games and eating? :)
The only way is to keep yourself healthy to suffer from less decline of IQ thus your IQ will 'increase'.
It's a way but I don't think it's the only way. Even a challenged kid (let's say above the imbecile level) is able to increase its intelligence via the oligophrenopedagogy, which is coming to show that the average IQ people via education may have real chances to improve their intelligence.
How a person raised by wolves or monkeys is the same intelligent as a person who is attending university classes just because their DNA is the same?! Impossible. The practice shows that the education and the training improves a lot. Even an animal -- a kid (goat's baby) or a puppy will become more intelligent if it's around teaching and caring animals, people and others. For example, a monkey can learn how to use a soap if you teach it but if you didn't it will not use it.
The more primitive organisms like snakes rely mostly on their DNA but the more evolved like the monkeys, the apes, the humans, they need socialization, practice, learning and in this way they increase their fuller potentials of IQ, EQ and others.
"And, whether I am saying is correct or not is not dependent of whether what I am saying is demonstrated by a professional or not, not to mention what I am saying is just the viewpoint of the psychometric professionals." You just prove it well enough and we'll believe it. Of course we, as scientists, want more verifications, studies, etc., but if you're a person who just have his own good proves, it's okay. I mean, we don't need to be formalistic.
The law of diminishing returns is a good mention. Let me add a simple image of it for the people who never learned it: (https://ts1.cn.mm.bing.net/th/id/R-C.1986a523eecc04912f1eb72d89c6235b?rik=imWNUSNy9aPBng&riu=http%3a%2f%2fskinnyfattransformation.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2013%2f05%2flaw-of-diminishing-returns1.jpg&ehk=eHAgWDpi0QOc7VXTYFKofHci566zVvGe%2b9W3dPMdnmA%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0). If the concrete (Spearman's) is something different, let's know.
This law shows that the efforts (quantity) leads to results (quality).
because knowledge is delimited from intelligence
Look, it's a philosophical problem -- how you will define the knowledge and the intelligence. There are and can be different definitions of them. And according to the definitions they will overlaping or be equal, or be different.
For example, to answer an IQ test question correctly you have to know how to, you have to have some kind of knowledge. Another example, if you know some fact, like "Tibetan language (藏语) is related to Chinese language (汉语) because they're from the same, Sino-Tibetan language family (汉藏语系)." can be considered as intelligence because most of the people around the world don't even know what's Tibetan, where is Tiber, what languages are Tibetans able to speak and understand, what is their native language and so on.
although knowledge is not intelligence, but they are correlated because how well you can apply the obtained knowledges and retain them needs intelligence
So, according to this, the intelligence is an ability and the knowledges are the tools of that ability? Something like the situation with the emperor-like person who is using the main party in his country as a tool? Am a correct?
This is just Crystallized Intelligence.
Here we have to explain this definition: this theory (fluid intelligence versus crystallized intelligence) was first proposed by psychologist Raymond Cattell who further developed it along with his student John Horn. The theory suggests that intelligence is composed of different abilities that interact and work together to produce overall individual intelligence. (https://www.verywellmind.com/thmb/1dhzdo_vP9KQ5fS3dmgZUNnZL1U=/750x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/fluid-intelligence-vs-crystallized-intelligence-2795004_color2-5b69d275c9e77c0050ba7290.png)
When there are other unexpected variables adulterating the variances, the loading on the expected factor will for sure be lower, compared to the same context without the unexpected variables in question.
Of course! "unexpected < expected" but what's the point here?
but education, reading, you name it, never really boost your intelligence very much, because general intelligence is 91% genetic and only 9% environmental.
And here, exactly here, you need to provide studies which measured it. Everybody can say that it's 91:9 or 1:99, why not 50:50? Who proves that the genetics vs. environmental is only 91/9? Huh? Yes, we may guess the genetics is the base and maybe it's at least 50% or more. (That's why I strongly disagree when the parents or school owners blame only the teachers for the results -- they postulate that the students are all equally gifted and with the same IQ, the same genetics. It's really wrong! And that's one of the reason, empirically to say that I do agree that the genetics is 50% or more! But 91% looks too much and, yes, it looks still possible, but give me the sources of such a serious claim.)
IQ does not correlate with life outcomes as highly as some high IQ megalomaniacs are blackpilling.
Here comes the EQ and other types of "Q" that are sometimes or often neglected and, also, other factors (like the capital, the relationships, the background, the popularity and many others). There are so many low IQ-ed and average IQ-ed successful man and women, of course the life outcomes are not very correlated with the IQ and even with the marks in school (which are a better mirror of your IQ and EQ) and your overall knowledge.
And how can 'oligophrenopedagogy' refute my point that you can't increase your general intelligence? Of course, you can increase your IQ score by education or whatnot, but again, the increase of IQ score does not equate the one of your g. They are totally different. Because if you are dedicated into increasing your cognitive abilities, you are just increasing Specific Variances.
I also found out I was wrong at the point that increasing the specific variances of all of cognitive tasks equates increasing the common variance, because by the current training, you can only increase the variance of cognitive tasks that the training purports to increase but it can't increase other cognitive tasks like you can't increase your performance on Visual Puzzle by getting trained on Matrix Reasoning, so after all you are still just increasing the specific variances instead of the common variance which is 'g' even though you have increased all of cognitive tasks by the training.
And, grade correlates with IQ with an r=0.5, and IQ correlates with g with an r = 0.9+('IQ' here stands for 'FSIQ' on wais-iv). So you can see grade does not correlate with g(viz, it does not have high g-loading) highly.
-
just tautologically throwing this question 'Why do people with decent education have higher average IQ than those with awful education'
It can be tautological if we take it as a statement that, you see, the clever people have good marks; good education. I'm telling something more that non-clever people via education get smarter, cleverer + that even the mentally challenged (and even animals which are obviously lower IQed "creatures") are capable of improving their intelligence if you teach them long time with patience and right pedagogy. That's why a gorilla that grows up with human educators may become capable to past tests that even some human teenagers can't but the similar gorillas growing in the jungles can't pass tests which are the human kids' level.
the increase of IQ score does not equate the one of your g
And then how you know the the g is the same or not the same, if the IQ tests' scores are different but don't show anything?! Does it mean that the IQ tests are useless to show the real g? (There is an opinion like this, I met it before.) And how you know, at all, the g if we accept that the IQ tests, the marks in school, the life results (achievements) don't show anything about it? Is it really unmeasurable and if it is, how we know that there is something like that and something about his quantity?
so after all you are still just increasing the specific variances instead of the common variance which is 'g'
Is g the sum of all its variances? Like, let's make a fast analogy, an army: only to enlarge the number of the soldiers isn't the whole army improvement, but if you add more naval forces, better AI, new capable generals and so on, the overall army is getting better, i. e. the army is the sum of all these: the AI, the generals, the navy, the soldiers of the ground forces, the drones, and so on and so forth. Is g the sum of its variances? Or something more than it? If so, what's the amount of the variances in the whole g? After all, what's g?
grade correlates with IQ with an r=0.5, and IQ correlates with g with an r = 0.9+('IQ' here stands for 'FSIQ' on wais-iv). So you can see grade does not correlate with g(viz, it does not have high g-loading) highly
Maybe this is the extend of the correlation if they measured it right. Can you give me the link (the source) of this study to see more how they got these concrete results?
-
I am not very familiar with all of the terminology and it's hard to get some of the points. For example "r=0.5" is 0.5 out of 1.0 or out of 10? Is it 0.5/1 or 0.5/10 or even maybe 0.5/100? :o help me to understand.
And if you can, please in very simple words tell me is that the reality: the g (IQ) is not very important about your success in school, university, work or business, life (including being an incel or being in a love relationship)? Is that something that doesn't matter more than 1-5% to our lives? And if it is the situation, is it overvalued?
-
I had some chats to deal with so I will add more answers and thoughts here now.
Knowledge is just your storage of informations
This definition of the knowledge isn't very full and very philosophic. From a simple philosophy (and gnoseology) point, we may at least add that there is knowledge "I know" and also there is knowledge "I know how to", i. e. some knowledge is the kind you mentioned, but other is practical knowledge. For example, I'll share with you a sweet memories story ;D. In 2004 I had to live with a pretty Harbin girl (哈尔滨美女) in her 1 room flat where was living her mother too. It was a small place but I worked for her as a part-time English and Russian teacher and shared the incomes 50/50, so she was generous enough to let me live there for free. It was a pity that I couldn't pass her high standard thresholds ;D but it was fun to be around because she often wears shorts and T-shirts and the "view" was amazing :-*. In a word, she was a hot lady, this is what I can give as an honest opinion but she wasn't very clever EQ wise and knowledge wise (but still she got English Master's degree or around)... Why I am sharing this? Because there was an unforgettable conversation with her: once I told her that "Mushrooms aren't plants. They're also not animals. They have own "kingdom" (kingdom "Fungi", which includes the yeasts, rusts, smuts, mildews, molds, and mushrooms. ) :) And then she undervalued this knowledge of mine and said: "We, the Chinese, don't think this is "knowledge". For us more important is can you solve some practical problem like, here is a long stick in the room and the door is small, how to move the stick away through this door." ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D This sounds a bit funny (because she was one of those who think they can represent all of the Chinese people "I think so = All Chinese think so") and the example was too childish (a long stick and a door, wow :P ;D) but the point was interesting -- yes, there are different type of knowledge and to know what are the mushrooms isn't the same as to know how to rotate a long stick moving it through a small door. :)
And, the statement that g is 91% genetic and 9% environmental can be easily googled:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Genetic_and_environmental_determinants
A friendly reminder to all people who think that in China you can "google it" or reading Wikipedia, Yahoo... or watching YouTube, reading Facebook, Twitter... and so on, this is what you got trying to do so:
- google.com? Sure! ;D
This site can’t be reached
gogle.com took too long to respond.
Check your internet connection.
Check any cables and reboot any routers, modems, or other network devices you may be using.
If it is already listed as a program allowed to access the network, try removing it from the list and adding it again.
If you use a proxy server...
Check your proxy settings or contact your network administrator to make sure the proxy server is working. If you don't believe you should be using a proxy server:
- Wikipedia.org? Of course! ;D
This site can’t be reached
wikipedia.org took too long to respond.
Check your internet connection.
Check any cables and reboot any routers, modems, or other network devices you may be using.
If it is already listed as a program allowed to access the network, try removing it from the list and adding it again.
If you use a proxy server...
Check your proxy settings or contact your network administrator to make sure the proxy server is working. If you don't believe you should be using a proxy server:
You need to pay for a VPN (not a good idea if you're with low income or jobless) and still you never know when some policeman will say that it's illegal. You're living in permanent uneasy status if you do so, that's why I am avoiding to use VPNs in China most of the time. (I'm just telling this because I usually only "Bing it" and "Baidu it", but can't "Google it" or "Yahoo it").
So, because I am sort of limited to reach the sources and we tend to agree that there is some correlation between IQ, knowledge, education, marks and even the success in life, I will leave the details for those who're really more deep into the matter.
Let's see more about the so-called IQcels -- what problems we may see there which will help us to know more about the inceldom itself. 8)
-
And it was said that the school and uni grades are more important than the IQ results, right?
-
And it was said that the school and uni grades are more important than the IQ results, right?
Depends on "important for who?" and "important for what?" As we learned from Liam, the importance is different for the Americans and for the Chinese. For me, I can confirm, it will be more important and more representative if someone had better grades than better IQ test scores because I really met some people with high IQ scores and expected much more but they were making a lot of mistakes that they wouldn't if they really were better schoolgirls and schoolboys.
Examples: He can answer at once the IQ test question "If Larry's son is my son's father, what relationship am I to Larry?" but he doesn't know anything about the objective idealism and the subjective idealism, never heard about the solipsism (i. e. his philosophy knowledge is not more than 3/10). Or she can solve all those "What number comes next in this series? 9, 16, 25, 36..." but she makes ridiculous economics mistakes like "If a country is bigger then its economy surely is better than the economy of all of the small countries!" ;D and "The main problem of our country is that we were under foreign control in the past!" (Like "if there is no Israel/Turkey/Japan/you name it, our nation will be the best ever!") ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
And just adding a last one, to make my point clearer. You see, if an incel meets two girls and he can ascend, which one is better for him? The one who learned psychology and knows how to make him feel better, more secured and so on, learned some culinary classes and knows how to cook healthy and tasty to keep him healthier, learned well biology and knows how to keep the hygiene to keep him away from the hospitals and learned some other useful for the life subjects than the other one who solves all kind of IQ tests but when it comes to understand his needs, to cook something, to keep clean and tidy and so on, she just can't and she'll expect him to take care for all this (like that case with the Harbin beauty. When we lived together I told her: let me wash the clothes and other stuff that you don't like to do. And the answer was that she doesn't like to do anything and, in short, I have to do all the housework and to share with her 50% of my incomes and in return, well, she will just let me live in her home for free + some free food... Well, the deal wasn't very fair but I had no choice and I accepted. But I think for an incel or another man, the best is when they share the housework around 50%, when they help each other, when there are equal duties and responsibilities, and rights)...
-
I can't use too professsional termonologies here
??? Honey, trust me you're using too professional terminologies to the degree when we can't follow you. Do you think we know what are all these wais-iv, FSIQ, Matrix Reasoning and so on? ;D ;D
-
Hehe, yeah, of course a guy from rich qu (区) in Shanghai and a girl from rich country in Scandinavia will underestimate the money (because they have it) and for them the things like height, looks, personality, education, gaming skills and others will be more important. But the true pictute is that as long as most of the people like us aren't rich, most of us have to think first about money. I am a male and I want a Beauty, a Stacy, okay? But if there is a richer Becky who will make me better, safer, cooler and happier, let it the Becky. This is how it works. 8)
Money is no object to me lol.
-
For the people who have it (the money), it's not important. You see, for some girls in Africa, the Philippines, some regions of China, etc. even to buy a car or a house is a dream. (I heard also about a grandfather from a poor country who dreamed to buy a teapot, but it's another story.) And then, most (or at least many) of these girls will choose a boy/man who can give them the dreamed cars, houses, travels around the globe, etc. But if you can have it all without a male to provide it to you, of course you'll focus on other things like what kind is his face, what kind is his character, is his body is good, if he's understanding you and treating with respect, if he is able to protect you, etc.
-
And also it depends on the age of the female. If she is still a teenager or a college girl that may receive money from her family, she can't care less about how rich is the man and she'll just search for cuties, strong ones, interesting ones... but when she is already mature and counts the things like "how much should I have to raise a kid + to have for my wardrobe + to can travel + to eat what I want + x, y, z" then she will figure it out that it's a very good idea :P to have a richer, influencial husband not some loser who can't even earn enough for himself. Isn't it normal? If she is filthy rich, well, there are two options:
- a/ searching for a richer or at least the same rich man because she is not willing to be a "sugar mom" to some "beggar"
- b/ just ignoring how rich or poor is he if he's good husband material and satisty her tastes.
-
Wow! New nickname "Way To America". 8) Are you going already to USAmaxx? ;)
-
By the way, I want to tell you what I learned many years ago in a politology class. The professor said that there are many Americans from Central America and South America, who are against that only the USA are called "America". I don't know how many are they and is it still an issue nowadays but it makes good sense. Yes, there are many people, for example in Europe, who think that "America" and "USA" ("US", "United States") are interchangeable but, in fact, we have to know that "America" is an umbrella term. It means the continent America ("美洲" in Chinese), but in fact there are 2 Americas (North America and South America).
-
How much per semester, bro?
-
Despite of how much it'll be cool if he can graduate there and got this rare degree and then makes good money and supports his needs, some of the brocels and to ascend. 8) 8) 8) The challenge is being able to survive in a high competetive, rude, and not safe place where some people like to open fire.
-
Don't hope too much. Most of the incels (and not only the incels) when they make their life successful will be just like: "Sorry, bro! It's not my problem. And now I have other problems to deal with. You didn't achieve your goal to get rich? Well, how to find a job, bro? Good luck, bro!"
-
Most of the people are not going to help you; there are even those who'll hurt you, who'll make your situation worse.