Absolutely based, Juden Peterstein BTFO for all eternity

IQ denialism is about as absurd as climate change denialism

Nobody is denying anything, but the point is that it only works up to 100, after that it at most explains 25% of the variance between cognitive loaded tasks, at most 25% of the variance!

That's the point Arab-Man wanted to make, it's barely a decent measure.

IQ scores perfectly explain Jews winning 30% of Physics Nobels. Butthurt Arab.

>Nobody is denying anything
lie
> but the point is that it only works up to 100
lie
>after that it at most explains 25% of the variance between cognitive loaded tasks, at most 25% of the variance!
lie, and even so
>only 25%
>only
as if one single number explaining 25% of your ability to do cognitive tasks is somehow an insignificant result

This.

It is scientifically insignificant, it’s not predictive at all. Also, it’s 25% AT BEST.

His argument and mathematics was literally bullshit. Anyone who has taken a basic probability theory class knows you can compare groups with different variances by looking at the variance of their summed distributions.

He quite literally is pulling his main objections to IQ out of his ass. Measures do not need to be monotonic, nor do we have information to suggest that IQ cannot behave in a monotonic fashion. His hand waving about the SAT graph reflects the limitations of the SAT exam, not some inherent issue with IQ as a metric.

Basically, he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about in either math or psychology. IQ is an incomplete assessment of intelligence, but it is significantly more useful than he is pretending, and is perhaps the most useful psychometric that has ever been developed. It has larger replicability than more or less every other social science sub-field and has a higher predictive validity than even many hard sciences.

>not predictive
ok so you don’t know what a correlation is
>AT BEST
lie

Attached: medlife.jpg (838x1250, 426K)

>and is perhaps the most useful psychometric that has ever been developed.
It is, for disabilities.

>His argument and mathematics was literally bullshit
It was not, he does this shit his whole life, takes apart "science" that ignores second order effects.

He demonstrated that IQ only explains 25% of variance after 100 in what metric exactly? Are you talking about his little noise hand waving exercise surrounding the IQ vs. SAT graph (in which the SAT is limited at 2400 thus producing an asymptotic curve in their relationship)? In what capacity does IQ explain only 25% of variance after 100? Job performance? Expectation of household income? Some particular standardized test performance? What are you comparing it against in terms of your claim of only predicting 25% of variance?

Read the article he wrote on Medium instead of asking stupid questions.

He perfectly explained how retards like you misattribute correlations.

Sends an abrasive tweet, but doesn't state any specific criticism of Peterson's ideas, and ignores the invitation to debate him. Sounds like somebody's just jealous that there's a newer, more popular, contrarian in town - sad!

>muh disabilties
and job performance, income, educational attainment, etc.

>Notice the noise: the top 25% of janitors have higher IQ than the bottom 25% of college professors, even counting the circularity. The circularity bias shows most strikingly with MDs as medical schools require a higher SAT score.

IQ and Psychology destroyed.

no he didn’t. take stats 101 instead of learning math from twitter gurus

? That's how reality is. The university system is a joke.

Do yourself a favor and take a probability theory class or read a fucking book, either one. Expectation of a random variable (from which the concept of variance is defined) is a linear transformation. It holds true with the principle of linear superposition.

Also, you cannot just keep asserting that claim that IQ is only useful in the negative without providing evidence. Earlier you stated that beyond the defined mean, IQ is only responsible for 25% of variance in performance, yet do not seem to have any information to back that up, nor even a coherent conception of how this could be the case.

I'm not sure whether Taleb is intentionally misleading people, or is actually this ignorant of Probability/Stochastic Processes but he's completely talking out of his ass here.

>income
Read the stupid article you dumb fragilista.

>There is no correlation IQ/Income above 60K (Assume 2007 $s). Even in situations showing presence of a correlation, you see MONSTROUS noise. Even at low IQ, and low income! Shows IQ is designed for subservient low-salary earners. From Zagorsky (2007). This truncates the big upside, so we not even seeing the effect of fat tails.

Again, the world is fat tailed, not Gaussian. Psychologists are too stupid to understand statistics properly.

>Again, the world is fat tailed, not Gaussian
retard

medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

not an argument

amazon.com/Statistics-Without-Psychology-Christine-Dancey/dp/0273726021

How pathetic can you get.

I've read the article before and am rereading his recent updates to it. He still is implying that a measure needs to be monotonic and transitive in order to function. There are many measures that are neither monotonic, nor inherently transitive. When getting into signal processing (which he considers a major issue in psychology as many psychologists genuine do not have the same sort of training in stochastic processes as an actuary or an electrical engineer) you deal all the time with causal signal information that is only defined or returns information in a specific range, and yet that signal's presence is still massively important and measures of its intensity, delay, attenuation etc can be defined arbitrarily based on the needs for processing.

He offers more bite than he does bark. He ha quite a lot in the means of insulting people and next to nothing to actually back up his position and often in the case of the IQ sample by profession completely misunderstands the position of psychometrics. His math is impressive primarily to people who know nothing about statistics (ie anyone who hasn't taken a Probability or Stochastic processes course) and his definitions of usefulness are just as arbitrary and pointless as the intermediary comparisons against IQ that he decries as arbitrary. Yes, there is no rigidly defined range for what IQ a janitor should be vs what IQ a professor should be, and there certainly is a non-zero proportion of janitors that may be more intelligent than some professors, but the idea that we cannot assess a population group's mean intelligence and get an expectation value for a random variable defined on their population is ridiculous and just calling it racist to notice that randomly selected people from Africa are often not a good fit for a modern economy isn't an effective argument against the real phenomenon occurring.

>not an argument
Hahaha, fuck you asshole
How's that for an argument?

>randomly selected people from Africa are often not a good fit for a modern economy isn't an effective argument against the real phenomenon occurring.

To be fair he says it works via negativa, and if an individual African is below a certain IQ threshold then he really isn't a good fit according to Taleb himself.

ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/

If you're still convinced, I'm not sure how to help you. I would seriously recommend getting a probability theory book though. I'm not someone with expertise in social sciences, I'm an electrical engineer, so I know a bit more about the mathematics of his arguments than the actual supporting data, but he provides very little data/sourcing directly and the data I can find seems to indicate the exact opposite of many of the claims he makes.

If we used Taleb's 60% predictability power as the bar for what makes a predictor useful or "scientific", smoking 5 or more cigarretes per day would not be a good predictor of cancer risk, despite the fact that it increases cancer risk by about 100x, versus non-smoking.

>tylerdurd8n

Where did he slay Pinker?