Playing pokemon shape your brain

This but unironically

So, adults retain an interest or at least recognition towards things they obsessed over in childhood? Seems like a pretty bold claim desu, I'm going to need to see a lot more before I believe something so radical and new.

Not that user, but while Scientologists are deluded twats, psychology is still mostly bullshit too.

Scientologists employ psychologists you tard

We didn't know that it literally shape your brain, which display the plasticity of the brain.

What, I thought that was the default understanding of how the brain worked.

not for /pol/

Don't they believe the lizards or whoever are brainwashing people?

You seem to have an obsession with /pol/.

nice falseflagging

>interesting thread immediately devolves into crying about /pol/

Well, it is both genes and environment. If it's not genes and purely environment then how come dogs can't be as smart as humans?

Check the IP count, retard, that was my first post.
Remember not to bump this shit thread.

>Digimon
You mean Sonic.

Digimon furthered loli/shota yuri/yaoi and incest.

i get a weird feeling from seeing pokemon cards. somewhere between nostalgia and joy. takes me right back to being 8 years old

maybe this is why i know people up into their 50s who collect the cards

wouldnt be an issue if americans were banned from the internet

Why do you keep spamming this in every thread?
Are you one of those Mexicans that got separated from your mum?

not one of those wogs you retard

Sounds like you should have posted this in /pol/ then. Your point is fairly innocuous here.

He's not wrong though.

>Literally every single thing Sigmund Freud ever said has been disproven and debunked
by psychologists.

Nah. It's impotant for them to flaunt their idiocy to the rest of the world. Also they're the only ones who buy nintendo games so without them this would be Yea Forums by now.

Whoa... are you telling me that psychological states are reflected in the brain? Dualists btfo

Well in civilized countries we know how the mind works.
Mutt minds however, yikes

Nigger, this is Neuroscience, not fucking Psychology. It has fucking science in it's name for christ's sake.

and this everyone, is a fine example of american education

By anyone with a functioning brain.

What in the goddamn...?

>By anyone with a functioning brain.
ok so americans are out then

You laugh but once we figure out how the human brains works, we can cure the americans and they'll be the best people on earth.

I'm spreading ketchup all over my hamburger with the biggest knife you've ever seen, and there are no bobbies that can ever stop me.

>neuroscience measuring brain activity to stimulus

>retard american comes in thread

PAYHOLOGY IS BULLLLLSHIT DIS IS BULLLLLSHIT LOL

>it's not psychology it's neurology

HURRR RUUUU..m SUGNJND FREYD IS DUMB

>SUGNJND FREYD IS DUMB
This, but unironically.

Gee, i wonder why a board filled with grown men clinging to their childhood hobby refuses to believe in psychology.

That's not the point you fucking moron. The thread is about fucking MRI, brain scans, not fucking psychology.

Because they're depressed ignorant man children

No it isn't.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with it being a joke field of failed human beings.

Psychology is utter garbage

>But you can gauge someone's IQ by seeing if they think IQ is a valid paramiter despite being horseshit
This completely. Only the largest brainless will seek out anyway to prove they’re smart without thinking critically

Someone who actually studied Psychology and Biology in university here.
You idiots need to understand the difference between Psychoanalysis(Freud crackpot nonsense about wanting to fuck your mother or whatever because you're left handed) which is the arts side of the field and Psychology which is rooted in science- mind you, it's a soft science. Meaning, the bulk of the contemporary thought is founded in research and the scientific method, however we don't have a complete understanding of the brain yet, so it's subject to change.
The study OP posted is clickbait garbage by the way, likely by some useless fuck trying to justify their master's. BEING INTERESTED IN THINGS DURING CHILDHOOD SHAPES YOUR BRAIN DEVELOPMENT- WOW.

I think its the art, Sugimori's artstyle for example makes me nostalgic as fuck

Attached: fieldworker_sugi.jpg (681x403, 146K)

So on a scale from 1-10, how fun is it to run away from your problems?

You tell me, person who believes joining a field of utter bullshitters can fill your existential void.

annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424

6.7/10

>no it isn't

we scanned with fMRI a unique group of adults who, as children, engaged in extensive experience with a novel stimulus, Pokemon, that varied along critical dimensions (foveal bias, rectilinearity, size, animacy) from other ecological categories such as faces and places.

>Soft science

Thanks for the laugh user

Attached: 1186213719628.jpg (520x378, 77K)

>Yea Forums legit thinks psychology is fake

when i thought you retards couldn't suprise me anymore, holy shit lol

psychology is a good field, the problem is that retards think that "psychologists" are recognized by psychologists and have actual fucking degrees and certifications. Only complete brainlets believe that psychology itself is useless because they don't bother to see if someone that is spouting bullshit is actually fucking certified. Shit like IQ tests (rather than shit like crystalized/fluid intelligence), horoscopes, and MBTI personality tests are often mocked, and the gen ed psych classes I took in uni had professors that constantly made fun of these retards. Other normalfag concepts like "grit" as a psychological construct are also mocked for being blatant plagiarism.

freud is infamous in the psych community and is basically a meme. that said, freud was fucking dead by the 1940s and general medicine at that point was also hillariously bad. There were still doctors practicing fucking bloodletting at that point in time.

Attached: bullshit.gif (249x125, 368K)

>psychology
>science
annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424

What's going on in this thread

Attached: 1369757424901.jpg (600x427, 113K)

Inherent nostalgia aside, I'm pretty sure the faded watercolor tones are meant to evoke that early research of undocumented wildlife feeling.

>freud is infamous in the psych community and is basically a meme. that said, freud was fucking dead by the 1940s and general medicine at that point was also hillariously bad

Lives saved by the field of psychology since then: 0
Lives saved by the field of medicine since then: In the hundreds of billions
One is more worthy of humanity's resources than the other.

americans are being retarded as usual

>annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424
>Posting an article referencing psychotherapy, claiming that it has anything to do with clinical psych.
Am I being jebaited or are you actually just dumb, and have no reading comprehension or understanding of the topic that you're trying to discuss? Wait, I'm on Yea Forums never mind.

more proof that Yea Forums is the most retarded board on this godforsaken site
there are people that unironically cannot tell the difference between mom blogs and actual psychological research

>people that aren't certified
It isn't even just that. Hell, a lot of therapists aren't even properly certified, that's why they get mocked too. Both the neuroscience and the social science side of psychology have a bunch of false flagging retards

Attached: abandon thread.gif (420x242, 638K)

And here comes the amerifat with his shitty conspiracies to ruin the thread

Attached: strawman.jpg (550x446, 65K)

Guys did you know science isn't actually real? Like, it's all fake. My favorite youtube made a video about anti-science and after seeing all the anti-science posts on my facebook feed, I now believe all science is fake.
The left wants to control us!!

Attached: amerimutt.jpg (602x602, 66K)

The nonexistence of psychophysical and psychological laws are further evidence against psychology being a science.

"If the brain was so simple that could understand it, we'd be so simple we couldn't"

For psychology to be a science, there must be psychological or psychophysical laws.
Psychophysical and psychological laws don't exist.
Therefore psychology isn't a science.

It always struck me as unecessary categorization based on no empirical evidence.

Attached: GroupChart.png (1350x659, 64K)

so all I'm getting from this is that people who played Pokémon as children have a response when shown pokemon as adults? what's so special about this? am I brainlet or is this not very shocking?

>the shitskin immigrant horde of Yea Forums thinks iq doesnt real
Shocker

I don't think you understand how science works, nice try though bud. Oh, also there are """laws""" which you're keen on bringing up for whatever reason my confused friend. It's called good methodology, which is the foundation of all science.
Say for example, someone says that gravity doesn't exist because airplanes don't follow the same rules that we do an fly around in the air- I'd tell them that a good way to test their theory would be to jump out a window. Good methodology.

Are you implying that anyone gives a fuck about what Freud said any more? He's a historical piece famous for getting the field attention. Even a fucking intro psych student that hasn't finished a single year's worth of courses is taught that his theories have no provable basis.

That example was so retarded that it invalidates everything else you've ever said.

Nothing is special about it, you're right. The study was pointless, and found useless results.

It's basically just using Pokemon as the example because it's easy to find people who played Pokemon as kids and still recognize it due to the popularity.

What if your responses to your environment is affected by your genetics, but then your experiences with those environments shape how your genes are expressed as you grow older?

Attached: 1547148456847.gif (320x240, 1.41M)

The scientific debate on iq is how much it effects, not if it has an effect at all, the trend being that more people are starting to think it has more of an effect

"/pol/tards" dont think iq's effect is 100% you retarded nigger

>IQ is mocked in the field
Lmao, virtually every serious paper on population studies includes it as a correlative you fucking fraud

it's not so much that it isn't real as it is that it's a shitty statistic that doesn't capture a person's performance well enough.

if you have a high IQ that doesn't automatically make you great at maths or capable or writing a well-written essay or research paper, and having a low IQ doesn't automatically make you a retard either.

Think of it as a damage multiplier for your attack when playing vidya gaems. The argument is how much weight that multiplier has. If you light the plant monster on fire, will it take 2x damage? 1.5 damage? How much of an effect does the fire have?

Not really, no.

Now tell me how Yea Forums shapes the brain

This would be interesting

IQ is a meme. And the IQ test has long been treated as such, except by brainlets who want to compare their dick size.
Intelligence is relative my dudes. And a test that's set up within the framework of the education system is only going to reward people who are successful within it.

Nobody ever claimed it was a predictor for specific aptitudes you dishonest cunt.

>its a shitty statistic that doesnt capture a persons performance well enough
Its a measure that properly carves out meaningful differences in populations. IQ correlates with virtually every favorable objective metric we have for success.

>think of it like a multiplier
Thats fucking retarded. If anything nurture would be the multiplier because you would be adjusting the baseline potential (genes at birth) by experience

Yea, youre a fucking idiot

IQ is a proxy of social class.
SES isn't social class btw

Yea youre the first person to levy that ciriticism in the centuries that the testing has been around

Theyve accounted for that in the testing retard. Current iq tests are complete abstractions that have nothing to do with your education or culture

>iq test has been treated as such
No, it hasnt

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.15252/embr.201744140
Meaningless correlations

>twin studies dont exist
>adoption studies dont exist
Class has virtually nothing to do with it, try another stab in the dark dipshit

>Theyve accounted for that in the testing retard. Current iq tests are complete abstractions that have nothing to do with your education or culture
Retard
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13854046.2016.1204011

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/28/twin-studies-adoption-studies-and-fallacious-reasoning/
Both garbage

Half the people in this thread probably latched onto the NPC meme

Attached: 1550615755461.gif (200x214, 280K)

In science there is no such thing as a law, just theories and testing those theories. "Laws" are just haughty names for theories.
Even nominal "laws" of Physics you may have learned in high school are less accurate than theories developed over the last century in physics, like newton's laws of motion.

Attached: 1510685840495.jpg (1024x767, 98K)

The level of rekking you're dishing out on this fool is unprecedented. Well done, user.

Attached: ↑↗→↘↓ + [FIRE].gif (250x141, 1.77M)

No. They're called laws because they cannot be broken. The law of gravity exists because matter has never not attracted matter. You idiot.

>guy rejecting other studies out of hand without sources
And his entire premise relies on studies of children which have observed malleable iq when compared to adults

This is trash making retarded assertions
>"they try to place kids in similar backgrounds"
Yet the adoption iq studies account for that, that is actually their purpose

Did you even read his one? His premise is that the tests are biased because they dont tailor them to specific groups, as if that isnt the point of standardization

Suck his dick harder retard

The problem is that there's no proper means of measuring "intelligence". It's not something that you can just quantify on a simple test, regardless of "abstractions".
You can say, Susan is bad at maths- she failed the math test. You can't say, Susan has low intelligence because she failed the math test.
And I think the larger issue is racists and other opportunists who use data from IQ tests to justify an rationalize their agenda.
The obsession with a need to measure, is rooted in the brain's desire to find patterns. There is no pattern, only correlation, and correlation is not causation.

You've read nothing of what I posted, keep making yourself look like a fool.
mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/1/1

>And his entire premise relies on studies of children which have observed malleable iq when compared to adults
Why do you lie?

You dont need to directly observe something to know its there and measure it

We knew genes for hair color and eye color existed before we found some. Breeders have known traits to be genetic for hundreds of yeara before genes were even discovered

Iq is a composite test that measures [something directly related to thing that makes people more successful in intellectual pursuits]. You dont need to play find the gene to know there is an effect and measure it

There is no point of lying since anyone can check the links themselves.
Or maybe you didn't actually read the paper about multicultural context

I looked over every source until coming across something stupid

You arent even rebuttingy points, youre just shitting out sources like youre familiar with the topic

emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf

This has a bit where they compare iq to other measurements

The schmidt and hunter study locked behind a paywall measured iq against various other measures of work aptitude and came out on top just below actual work samples

Iq tests doesnt exist in a vaccuum without sceutiny or being compared to other tests like the retarded subhumans think they are

Darkness!

makes it nice and smooth

>if you have played pokemon before your brain will recognize pokemon when you see them
very useful results. great use of time and money.

People with mental illnesses don't exist apparently. I'm sure people with schizophrenia would be much better served if they had to listen to an internal voice their whole life with absolutely no research done as to why.

Attached: 1516908311943.jpg (540x302, 42K)

The two studies he shoots down toward the beginning are concerned with exactly that before he goes on a rant about his proposed rationale

Why this specific paper is a gold standard being handed to me in light of the entire body of iq research is the icing on the retard cake. Individual studies are meaningless. The propensity of the evidence is how you create a scientific assumption short of having an actual law

The point about multicultural context is direnctly what i replied to brainlet

Natural selection and animal breeding isn't the same thing brainlet. Animal breeders have minds, natural selection don't

>I looked over every source until coming across something stupid
Retarded way to say
>I can't read shit

We can't cure schizophrenia you troglodyte. We can chemically lobotimize them.

>why do papers criticizing my shit aren't ignored since it hurt my feelings
Handwaving won't save you since it adress your statements and anyone can click on them and actually read them

IQ test are culturally biased, racial groups in countries like USA live virtually in different countries

>The propensity of the evidence is how you create a scientific assumption short of having an actual law
Imagine saying this seriously

>natural selection and animal breeding isnt the same thing
???

What the fuck does that have to do with the fact that both observations of populations and breeding observations are applying knowledge about genes indirectly?

Intent vs natural change has absolutely nothing to do with my post, how stupid

>retarded way to say i cant read shit
Like im going to put more effort than you in to your special snowflake paper. Ive pointed out flaws in them, and youve done nothing to cure them. Ive provided contradictory studies and the height of your intellectual rigor is to say lol you didnt read it

I didnt handwaive moron, i pointed out flaws and went no further, ive also provided counter sources to thoae exact points

In the centuries that iq tests have existed theyve gotten this criticism before dipshit, they arent culturally biased

>random jungle chinks score higher than africans on abstractions because of western cultural bias
>also iq tends to correlate better than virtually everything else including educational level

>Intent vs natural change has absolutely nothing to do with my post, how stupid
So why the IQ differences=genes then?

>Ive pointed out flaws in them, and youve done nothing to cure them
You made irrelevant points which do not adress the main bulk of the paper.
Again, other people will read it entirely at least

That would explain why people have fascinations for objects their parents owned or used as children, like cars.

What is your understanding of how a scientific community comes up with a consensus? A twitter clapback?

The more evidence collected tending to support one idea over another is how a consensus is established you fucking mongoloid

One experiment or paper or retard on the internet doesnt make something ironclad law. Iq is THE most attacked subject in science and nevertheless persists. Retards on here think the dumbest most obvious criticisms havent been levied against it, its hilarious

>I didnt handwaive moron
You did

>I pointed out flaws and went no further
You didn't you made shit up with great gymnastic mental

>Ive also provided counter sources to thoae exact points
You didn't, you posted things which do not respond to claims about iq/heredity. SES isn't social class btw.

Not him but
>muh chinks
It's as if these countries were never colonized before, as if Hong Kong was never a British colony or something.
>muh centuries
People believed for centuries that the earth was flat too.

There is nothing immense about the predictive power of IQ tests. No one has ever been able to predict any individual outcome on the basis of an IQ test. And IQ doesn't correlate more than 0.50 with any variable of interest

>so why x then
My post was explaining how a concept can be measured despite not being able to directly observe it, not some explanation of how iq works.

>why do iq differences indicate a gene explanation?
Its been done by testing it against other possible factors like socioeconomics and whatever else people have come up with for centuries. The current theories for exactly how iq is influenced by genes is less known. It is likely a series of related genes that create a propensity for some attribute, like genes will affect your susceptibility for certain diseases despite not guarunteeing them.

>you made irrelevant points
Theyre directly relevant? Direct criticisms of why you brought them up in the first place
>other people will read them
No they wont, and neither have you , and even if they did an individual paper is worth nothing and provides a skewed view of a topic without the papers criticisms and the rest of the fields inputs

Yes, because genes do shape who you are and are the principal driving force. Even gene determinists (which don't really exist, they are just a boogeyman used by gene deniers) are closer to the truth then environmental determinist retards who think humans are shaped only by the environment and/or sociological magic garbage.

Also this study only caught the attention of I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE crowd and they likely have no idea what any of it means.

Nice job outing yourself fucktard. IQ is pretty much the most well studied and reliable psychometric thing in the entire field of psychology. Its essentially the most scientific thing in that field. Yet you are unironically saying that "psychology is a good field, but IQ is mocked", which only reveals what a dumbass shithead you are.

Have you ever heard of the g-factor? No? Well I don't expect dumbasses like to know about it, but the g-factor is pretty much the main reason why most scientists (not just psychologist) can agree that IQ tests are valid and are measuring something called "g" which is strongly correlated with most people concept of intelligence. Or that IQ can be demonstrated to be heritable, which you cannot do for stupid concept like "multiple intelligence".

Yes, psychology is a garbage "science", its soft science. And its thanks to leftists like you, which have dragged the field down even worse and why there is a replication crisis. IQ, thanks to the scrutiny of leftists who are afraid of the concept that intelligence is genetic and that it isn't some super abstract thing that can never be measured, has ironically made it the few valid things in psychology.

I don't know why people shit on psychologists but praise neuroscience when the two go hand in hand.

A brain trying to understand itself is hard as balls, go figure. Not too many other fields have to deal with bullshit like qualia and the 'explanatory gap'.

Attached: 1549778583048.png (333x394, 232K)

>you did
Inckuding arguments why something is garbage isnt handwaiving idiot

>you made shit up
No i directly addressed the points and provided counters information, you just don't like or understand it

>you posted things that dont reapond to claims about ses
Lmao there literally is one, but its irrelevant for the reasons ive stated before

>Theyre directly relevant? Direct criticisms of why you brought them up in the first place
I brought them about the meaningless of these correlations.

>Its been done by testing it against other possible factors like socioeconomics and whatever else people have come up with for centuries.
It hasn't been done correctly because we currently cannot control the environment of a human

First of all, .50 is a shit ton of correlation you fucking moron, you have zero clue what youre talking about

Second of all, many studies have found higher correlations than .5 including one of the ones ive posted

>no one has been able to predict an individual
That isnt the objective, it can less intellectually be referred to as measuring potential.

My neuroscience professor said that it's a branch of psych. Anyway it's probably because neuroscience has more stuff that's traditionally associated with what people think of when they think "science." Namely that it has more concrete, physical elements, like brain scans/imaging.

IQ is a good tool that has been misappropriated and misused because of routine failure to take in mind that what is the average for one group is not the same average for another, or even reach the average in the same way

G factor has been shown nowhere to be actually real, to be found.
You only make claims based on these studies which bear massive flaws.
And environmental determinism is a strawman

Which branch of psych should I go into guys
I'm already deep into a psych program so it's too late to say "go into a more useful field"
I was thinking marketing psychologist

What the fuck did this thread even turn into???

Not him but can you try to explain how IQ measures intelligence without using the words "correlation", "prediction" and other materially void statistical terms?

MENSA cope.

Could you rephrase that question using the letter "E" exactly 5 times and after submitting a picture of you standing on your head?

I'll just leave this here.

nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

>i brought them about the meaninglessnesa of these correlations
And ill repeat that i directly criticized why those dont real for that purpose

>it hasnt been done correctly
Yea it has

Most of this shit is locked behind a paywall, and you wont look but since you stupis niggers love throwing ojt meaningless sources

“Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert views” Charles Reeve and Jennifer Charles, 2008,surveyed experts and non experts alike in the field. The experts think iq is not culturally biased and the non experts do

I imagine if you surveyed the retards here that number would be even higher, since it seems to correlate with ignorance of the subject

openpsych.net/forum/attachment.php?aid=440
Cultural bias according to the national academy of sciences means fuck all

Science deniers just throw out shit hoping it sticks and since nobody understands this topic, it does tend to stick

So you don't know what neuroscience is. That's fine. It's accumulation of data taken from brain wave activity as well as electrical signals as they move between the lobes and inside the lobes as well. It's not psychology, which focuses on perception from the individual being studied. The scientific method is used in neuroscience where as it doesn't work as well in psychology because of perpetual bias in asking subjects questions.

>IQ is a good tool that has been misappropriated and misused because of routine failure to take in mind that what is the average for one group is not the same average for another, or even reach the average in the same way

The words of someone who wants to support racial equality pseudoscience, while trying to demonize IQ researchers. The black-white IQ gap, and the racial hierarchy of IQ in the USA was not an intentional discover, it was just a noticeable trend that has persisted for 50 years, thanks to anti-racists activists who wanted to document whether or not blacks and whites were achieving parity. They weren't, and its amazing how stable that 15 IQ gap has been for the past 20 years. Comparing races IQ is completely acceptable because it highlights a racial differences in cognitive ability and such an important topic deserves greater policy implications. Compared to this clown world were the solution to racial differences in cognitive ability is based on this batshit insane belief that all races are equal in cognitive ability, but its just some magical sociological effect that is preventing equality, instead of genes.

A /sci/ thread with a touch of /pol/.

Attached: 1550254383883.jpg (1024x681, 162K)

>but its just some magical sociological effect that is preventing equality, instead of genes.
Have you ever seen the outside of your basement?

Sounds extremely primitive and useless. And thus inferior because at least you can trick people into thinking psychology is real. Any noteworthy accomplishments in the field?

>Once we figure out how the human brain works, we can cure the americans
>Once we figure out how the human brain works
>Human brain

Why would you study the HUMAN brain when you're trying to figure out something for the americans?

>Compared to this clown world were the solution to racial differences in cognitive ability is based on this batshit insane belief that all races are equal in cognitive ability, but its just some magical sociological effect that is preventing equality, instead of genes.

You know you're dangerously insane, right? Tell me that on some level you realize this.

>cite openpsych
And how many experts responded to it? Ignored it?
What kind of experts?

>Materially void
Something happening more often than not isnt materially void, its a valid observation. A prediction is obviously scientifically testable in this context.

But sure i can try to simplify it for you. The test purports to measure a persons ability to engage in the thinking necessary to do well on the test. That thinking is measured by the results on the test and related to the various outcomes and performances earlier referenced.

I wish people understood IQ and genetics, because if they did they would realize the level of profundity and stupidity which comes from people who think like this and deny IQ and genetics. IQ especially, these fuckwads truly don't understand how wrong they are when it comes to that.

When your biggest defender that "IQ is bullshit" is some stupid black twat on /sci/ who thinks genetics are a pseudoscience, maybe its time you step back and realize just how stupid the position you hold really is. IQ denial is to basically deny the entire foundations of what makes IQ so valid, the entire studies of correlations that suggest IQ is heritable (I guess its just a coincidence that identical twins have near identical IQ, and the hertiablity of IQ seems to drop the more genetically distance the person gets (from sister to parents to cousins to strangers). It must be the environment that is responsible for the Wilson effect! Not genetic).

But it goes even further then that. It really is just a fear of "innateness", of knowing that human traits come from genes. Of knowing that intelligence isn't necessarily this incredible abstract impossible to measure thing, and that it can in fact, be gauged and make reliable predictions. Even though genetics are the only reason you have physical form in this universe, it clearly has no effect on how you think. It does for every organisms on Earth, just not humans. Too bad for you, its not just limited to intelligence, every facets of a person behavior and personality is influenced by genetics.

Just wait till someone claims they invented self aware AI and then they have to deal with philosophers and psychologists challenging this claim on grounds of "fucking prove it".

It has accounted for every special snowflake bullshit that smarter people than you and i have come up with

[Citation needed]

>And ill repeat that i directly criticized why those dont real for that purpose
You didn't

>Yea it has
notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/28/twin-studies-adoption-studies-and-fallacious-reasoning/
No. Read it entirely this time.

The more you write, the more your insecurity shows through.

Keep it clear and concise if you're not afraid of being scrutinized.

This is misleading because most studies for anything generally are garbage, a point i made earlier in the thread

No one here made the claim that everyone are equals, who hurt you?
You only make people more afraid of listening to your position and only highlight that you can only strawman those who dare criticize your sources.

I don't think those will be the only people challenging them to prove it. Also I'm in psych (yes there is regret) and the statistics prof says psych doesn't "prove." It can get up to 99.999999999% sure, but not 100% without a doubt prove. Anyway I already feel like I suck because my sister's magnitudes smarter than me and I'm out of this thread. Wish I understood real math.

so does pseudoscience you fucking troglodyte

How much butthurt you must be when people actually respond to your shit haha.
Do you happen to be the spic who larp as white?

I'm not the one advocating that teachers and professors should be punished due to the genetics of their students, and then having that published in a mainstream leftists newspaper. You are, racial equality pseudoscience is what makes such idea acceptable because seeing your attempts to make blacks score just as well as other races on math have been met with 50 years of failure, you are gonna need to resort to radical acts, you have brainwashed children that blacks have an ability to be equals to humans. How much suffering and pain has this belief caused? How much traumatized inner city school teachers have you made? Racial equality is based on a literal pseudosceince and there doesn't exist a single scientific study that proves racial equality is valid, and the moral underpinnings of racial equality as the left believes them are undermined if its true that races have different cognitive and behavioral abilities, and you know that deep down.

The coming century will not be kind to Robert Plomin, you talk about how IQ is bullshit, and yet IQ is one the many metrics being used right now to identify genes with success, and then bypassing IQ entirely, and just making predictions based off someone DNA.

Attached: 1550702219069.png (639x971, 420K)

They're not gospel but they aren't garbage.

You morons have no right to be discussing matters so far beyond your mental capacity. Being anonymous and thus immune to reprecussion for spewing idiocy is no excuse.

It makes it thicc

I didnt cite openpsych idiot, i cited the paper that is literally in the link you didnt even click

>you didnt
I out in the effort to explain why i reject something and you retards just reject it and claim i didnt

>read it entirely
No, its not an especially important paper and nobody else here would even be able to discuss it anyway. The i fucking love science crowd thinks you can just take a citation dump in a thread and unless the person reads the whole thing and directly refutes every point made in it then hes wrong

I took some shits in response and you havent addressed those. Why not?

Ah here comes the dangerously insane with their collection of sensationalist news from tabloids and wildly misinterpreted statistics.

Then enlighten us on what was wrong.

You want me to provide you with a citation for every criticism ever levied against iq addressed in a paper? Lmao

>but they arent garbage
Well my point throughout the thread is that its about propensity and not individual papers

>You want me to provide you with a citation for every criticism ever levied against iq addressed in a paper? Lmao
Yes

when tf are we getting a pokemon game on pc so i can become smart

I think Yea Forums might actually be dumber than Yea Forums these days. Holy fuck.

>Well my point throughout the thread is that its about propensity and not individual papers

I understand that, but be careful with your words. Half the posters in this thread will take your post as an excuse to ignore all studies from now on. I've seen and caused that to happen before.

>literally has to search for random articles to get mad
>ignores every sources posted in the threads by nitpicking and avoid the actual points
I'm not that much into this debate but you look really bad.

Lmao

Pokemon TCG Online

No clearly these monkeys will hold up the flaming stick theyve found and start worshipping it while denying anything to the contrary

>I out in the effort to explain why i reject something and you retards just reject it and claim i didnt
You didn't said something which was actually relevant

>I took some shits in response and you havent addressed those. Why not?
You ignored the core of a short paper

The infants of today are the monkeys of tomorrow.

Nassim Taleb has made an argument against IQ that is only slightly more informed then the averager IQ denier, but he still got destroyed by people who actually know what they are talking about.

youtube.com/watch?v=fSXYhnrwjQE

Of course this thread is just one sad fuck (probably the same neurotic black loser on /sci/, he's the only one there who denies IQ and his posting style is easy to recognize and he is always made fun of on /sci/) bumping this, proving that he has no argument and admiting he lost it. People who deny IQ and genetics should be fucking arrested, worse then climate change deniers, and unlike the latter, these deniers are an actual threat to civilization. Thats how tired I am of people like you.

Nobody has read or comprehended the sources posted including the person who posted them

The fucking retards didnt know the sample population was school aged children in one of them lmao

Can someone tell me what all those fancy sciencey words mean?

>i didnt say anything relevant
>except ppint out why the stusies are flawed, why a single study being held up is flawed reasoning, and posting studies to the contrary
Lmao

>i ignored the core of a short paper
Lmao

ITT: Dunning-Kruger in action

Amazing that no one responded to this article:
notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/28/twin-studies-adoption-studies-and-fallacious-reasoning/
Which show that twin studies and adoption studies are shit

>who hurt you?
The absolute state of IQ deniers. So you gonna use actual arguments? We get it. You're a scared little black who thinks intelligence is determined by magic, not genes. Are you on Yea Forums because you got ran out off /sci/ for your bullshit? Its so easy to dismiss IQ deniers when they don't bring the g-factor into the discussion.

Whoa guys, we got an internet badass here.
No wait, I meant dumbass.

Attached: 1862.jpg (299x234, 30K)

The odd thing is that psychology itself notes that both genetics and developmental experiences are important. Dunno why people would post about psychology on /sci/, I always got the impression they hated it. Anyway not the guy you're arguing about IQ studies with, just thought it's odd. I don't even know who's arguing what position here any more.

Let me spell it out because you are a dumb shit.
IQ is also determined by the upbringing and education, a person that has been educated poorly will test with a lower IQ, be it a black child from a broken home that had to skip school often or a feral white child that was raised by wolves. Genetics are a factor but are not the end all.

Thank god I played nothing but pail of water as a kid.

I did respond to it dipshit

>assignment is nonrandom
Literally controlled for in adoption studies, actually the entire point of adoption studies is to take into account the childs environment, which makes what environment they were put in as a criticism irrelevant

Its already tremenously retarded on the first point

Addendum; daily reminder that IQ is 100% bullshit and all IQ apologists are retards. Literally every single thing ever said by IQ defenders have been disproven and debunked. We have absolutely no idea whatsoever how to gauge human intelligence.

why does this man have no nose

>Sean last
Strawman of taleb since taleb agree that low intelligence can be detected by IQ, taleb is irrelevant too, never addressed the heredity part.

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/28/twin-studies-adoption-studies-and-fallacious-reasoning/

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/01/15/people-should-stop-thinking-iq-measures-intelligence-a-response-to-grey-enlightenment/
G factor isn't real, not in the brain

Intelligence is difficult if even possible at all to quantify, sure, but saying we have no idea how to gauge it isn't entirely true.

Except that that isnt how the data comes out you fucking moron

Thats literally THE most elementary criticism ever levied aginst IQ

Imagine being so stupid that not only you do not get his point (in purpose probably) and that you ignore 99% of his sources. You responded to jackshit, you just make yourself look like a assblasted faggot

>I don't know anything about IQ, and anyone who defends it is just a dumbass who thinks he's smart

Christ, I'm getting flashbacks to creationist posting.

>G factor has been shown nowhere to be actually real, to be found.

Thanks dipshit. Thanks for proving you know nothing about the g factor or why it makes IQ test valid. The G factor doesn't HAVE to be real, it doesn't NEED to be found, there is no such thing as the g factor in the real world, indeed, not even leftist psychology who do intelligence research deny the g factor and their arguments against race and IQ and the g factor are very different from the ones you are making. its just a statistical construct. A very good statistical construct that helps provide a quantifiable construct for intelligence, and is the main reason why IQ tests are still used today. You see, IQ isn't about finding out WHY it works, its about MAKING VALID PREDICTIONS. And this is all psychologists really care about. IQ tests and all other g-correlated tests make extremely VALID predictions about a person educational success, income, job performance and job attainment, and extremely consistent at identifying students who are gifted who those who are mentally retarded. That's all that really matters in the end of the day, the fact that IQ tests can go even beyond that, and still have a high level of reliability , or that the g-factor is highly heritable and can even be applied to other animals, to the point that Chimpanzee g-loading also seems to be exactly like humans.

IQ tests are not to figure out WHY intelligence differs between people, groups, race, its just exist because the predictions they make are accurate.

Genome studies will be the ones to answer WHY.

[Citation needed]
It is not even a criticism of IQ, it is a criticism of the application of IQ

SES isn't social class.

Alright, thanks for outing yourself as the same black neurotic piece of shit from /sci/ who denies IQ. Go kill yourself faggot. Screeching about something that will become obsolete because we will have the ability to predict a person's intelligence and achievement from their DNA alone.

youtube.com/watch?v=FptGxaxJyms

IQ tests are tests of middle class knowledge and skills. The "predictive powers" are built into the test through test construction, and their "correlations with a host of life outcomes" are, again, due to test construction.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.15252/embr.201744140

Attached: IMG_20190225_202749.jpg (1080x1213, 340K)

>we will have the ability to predict a person's intelligence and achievement from their DNA alone.
I don't even need to write a stupid food analogy to say why this is so patently wrong.

>We find that experienced adults not only demonstrate distinct and consistent distributed cortical responses to Pokemon, but their activations suggest that it is the experienced retinal eccentricity during childhood that predicts the locus of distributed responses to Pokemon in adulthood.
I'm no pocket protected scientist but doesn't this just mean that they just noticed it? Why do they have to break out the textbook glossary for this?

What's going on here I don't understand
what's this about IQ and psychology again
isn't IQ testing something they like to use in a lot of psych studies
where are the video games

Attached: splatsploot.jpg (676x581, 54K)

>name-calling to avoid the debate
>seething
>unironically quoting plomin
About that:
blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/is-our-future-really-written-in-our-genes/?amp

I have a feeling that those that keep harping that IQ tests are perfect and do no wrong have never taken an IQ test themselves, nor noticed that they are glorified logic and math puzzles, that they require learned knowledge to solve.

I didnt and never said it was, why the fuck do you keep saying that
>its not a criticism of iq
Obviously, im speaking colloquially

Imagine being so stupid you think your post is correct in any way

So far in the thread ive listed as many, and more credible sources, than this grasping at straws shit

One of his sources isnt even academic, its some retard claiming fallacious reasoning where there is none because he doesnt understand how statistics or sampling works in the first place

And again, you, nor him, nor anyone else in the thread has read his trash in full let alone comprehended it

Unironically this, see

I think they have taken an IQ test and use this to validate whatever paranoid idiocy next pops into their brain. How can they be wrong if they have high IQ? Everyone who isn't them must be wrong. Sane men in a mad world.

>iq tests test specific knowledge
Lmao who wrote this garbage

>I didnt and never said it was, why the fuck do you keep saying that
Because you imply that the criticism has been responded, that's false.
Responding with the basis of SES is already stupid, social stratifications being ignored too...etc

You've never saw IQ test right?

I love this elephant. What's it called?

anyone? help a low-IQ user out here

Attached: runiecry.png (882x754, 105K)

The "math" they contain is abstract arithmatic that doesnt directly test math. It tests how many things you can keep track of and dispense quickly and simultaneously

They specifically design them to not require specific knowledge and continuously do so

is proooooh

Attached: proooh.png (181x194, 3K)

Attached: proooh2.png (3840x2160, 62K)

>It is though.
It's neuroscience.

I don't know why you posted this here. The only reason Pokemon was used was because images of pokemon are vastly different from normal visual stimuli on the measures they were looking at.

The study is about exploring how exposure to novel stimuli creates new structures in the brain, specifically regarding eyesight

Attached: 1419190745461.gif (300x290, 1.74M)

I blame Internet "IQ tests"

If you talk about raven matrice, see pic.
if you talk about spatial reasoning, refer to structure MC in homes

Attached: IMG_20190225_204200.jpg (1152x2048, 633K)

It has been responded to, funny i keep responding to it and all i get back is that i havent responded to it
>responding with the basis of ses
Im not
>social stratifications being ignored
Directly addressed in my posts criticizing your gospel

researchgate.net/publication/28578422_A_Critical_Analysis_of_IQ_Studies_of_Adopted_Children/
Adoption studies are crap

I have, thats why im asking

There were no hard math problems, though they did use numbers, but shapes would have accomplished the same thing

Internet IQ tests are just as much bullshit as the Meyers-Briggs test determining someone's personality

How do I read the full text of this? I'm not a researcher.

See use sci hub

I loved playing pokemon as a kid. today I couldn't care less about the series.

>see pic
>it has been shown
What is their argument? that sub saharan africans cant understand a culture neutral test because theyre functionally retarded?

What does familiarity matter when the point of an iq test is to test people who arent acclimated to them? Its already observed that people do better on the tests they are familiar with. How does that disprove differentiation when groups arent familiar?

Im not understanding what that proves, it just claims they proved it without a showing or explanation

The questions in IQ test are things that western people are used too, which also include asian countries which have been westernized.

In english, please?

Fair enough, but considering how China is making Africa it's bitch, it will be westernized in a way

So is the pro-IQ poster in favor of psychology or against it?
Which position is the anti-IQ poster in?
EXPLAIN OR I CALL HIRO

>of adopted *children*
Except childrens intelligence is more malleable than adults, why would their non correlative variance generally be disproving variance in adults?

The thrust of iq proponents is that intelligence is malleable in the envieonment until adulthood

How are people in the west used to arrangements of shapes and patterns anymore than anyone else?

And how does this same logic not apply to western blacks for instance?

>fMRI
Stopped reading there
sciencealert.com/a-bug-in-fmri-software-could-invalidate-decades-of-brain-research-scientists-discover

It sounds like theyve found a circular argument to trap the debate in

Assuming africans are in fact worse at iq tests this conclusion could be the same. How are they even testing for "cultural familiarity"?

Cultural familiarity with how to logically think in the first place no doubt

please do not tell dad. psychology is a scam but an IQ test tells you as much about a person as their SAT or ACT score.

Adoption studies are mostly about children genius, the rest have extremely low n so irrelevant. And the paper does adress the "Adult IQ"

>How are they even testing for "cultural familiarity
Read the pic again, it has been shown that these same population do better in tests where they're actually prepared, check the sources cited by the pic

>it has been shown
Sure
>when they actually prepared
that defeats the purpose of the iq test, why is that relevant

That point is acknowledged by researchers already too, how does that bring iq tests crumbling down?

>tells you as much as an sat or act score
>yfw sat and act and actually also predictors of success
>yfw iq is an even better predictor than those

dang ok
well I think psychology is important to deal with the crazy people but yeah IQ test is fine
I thought IQ tests were supposed to be a part of psychological testing anyway

>that defeats the purpose of the iq test
His purpose was already defeated when it test westernized populations which are prepared to IQ test thanks to their everyday life in a westernized society

>That point is acknowledged by researchers already too
They don't adress it correcly, see the pic again.

This is low IQ as fuck star trek science isnt real if we can make models that fit reality its science

thread lacks video games
Necrozma is Kingdra here

Attached: Pokefavorites1.jpg (1366x768, 313K)

>when it prepared populations
How exactly. Its circular reasoning, they claim the west is acclimate to the tests because of some nebulous assertion, and that is supposedly proven by the fact that if you study the test you do better on it, despite that applying to literally everyone
>they dont address it correctly
They literally acknowledge that studying for iq tests increases your score, and it subverts the purpose of the test

that reminds me, should I stop seeing a psychotherapist Yea Forums?
been doing a lot better but I think I can probably go without, could save me some money for video games instead of spending it on this
pretty sure I'm cured or whatever

>How exactly
See pic

>They literally acknowledge that studying for iq tests increases your score, and it subverts the purpose of the test
They don't acknowledge the "westernized" part

Attached: iqqq.jpg (675x1200, 265K)

Stop talking about things that aren't video games.

Attached: Necrovarg.jpg (230x208, 13K)

>the items are devised by a narrow cultural background
Irrelevant and retarded
>such as a school type knowledge
Nebulous and probably bullshit because it isnt elaborated upon
>still doesnt establish why exactly raven matrices are bad, just circlejerking themselves

>literally takes issue with averages being used to develop a test designed to test for an average and deviation from

Maybe instead of rejecting the tests for ancillary reasons not backed by actual flawed results he should set out to invalidate why using such averages are bad to begin with

>these things negate the common factor being tested
This paper is a fucking joke why are you relying on it? Theres much better criticisms

This is false because these cultural biased subtests have a lower "g" weighting than other non culturally bias subtests

>they dont acknowledge the westernized part
The general sentiment of normative is relfected in their retarded reasoning. Averages exist in every population, that doesnt somehow invalidate the test. If it did then you could just directly attack on that basis alone yet they cant because its not true

Nowhere in that picture is a direct criticism of the specific things they are referencing. Am i supposed to just believe dr faggot because he doesnt like them?

>expect pokemon autism cringe thread
>it’s another retards argue about blatant bait thread
gay

>not peer reviewed
Woah......

One of the citations is literally some faggots blog

here

Attached: photoclubsummary.jpg (400x240, 32K)

You clearly didn't get the paper.
It clearly display the circularity in IQ test.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959354302012003012

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959354302012003012
You don't get the point.
IQ tests test cultural distance from the middle class since the items on the test are more likely to be found in certain classes over others.
Full paper

>not peer reviewed
Like most papers from hereditarians?
Like papers from OpenPsych?

He use many peer reviewed sources, of course you wouldn't know since you didn't read it.

Psychologists
How do I fix my self diagnosed

Attached: 1546022837052.jpg (737x1024, 122K)

I dont want to deal with your bullshit

What part of what i said is wrong and why

Yea i did read the faggots blog and it was more retarded than the thread

>Irrelevant and retarded
That's false

>Nebulous and probably bullshit because it isnt elaborated upon
False and it is sourced in the full paper.

The others claims have already been adressed.

Not a argument

This

>items on the test are more likely to be found in certain classes
I do get the point and i addressed it. Its bullshit and not verifiable

>deflects to "dude just read the paper" the entire thread, doesnt argue any points directly
>trots out not an argument
Fucking lmao

>points have been addressed
Repeating read the paper over and over again isnt addressing a point and ironically, isnt an argument

>Its bullshit and not verifiable
False and it is verifiable, similar social class members have things in common. Check the sources.

>Fucking lmao
>What is bibliography
You claimed that his claims have no sources, you're wrong.

>Repeating read the paper over and over again isnt addressing a point and ironically, isnt an argument
It has been literally adressed, read the thread/pics.

has there ever been proven low iq people, that are genius or something? Isnt every single person who made a contribution to science high iq people?

Not every genius have done IQ test

>similar social class members have things in common.
Ok???
>you claimed he has no sources
You arent following me. My claim is that this source proves nothing from what youve posted

Im not wasting the time to read you garbage age just as you wouldnt read my sources, because its absurd to require that here and irrelevant on the basis that its just one fucking source

If youve actually read it you can present the arguments yourself instead of holding up someone who can argue in your stead

>its literally been addressed read the thread
Ive probably responded to every one of your posts and all you ever say is read the sources or some retarded one liner non sequitur

Gene's lay the based or potential and experience does the rest

Neurologists actually have a decent-ish idea. But everyone wants to focus on "psychology" because they think it's "science" when it's really just superstitious, pseudoscientific garbage.

but every genius that did tests has gotten an abnormally high IQ

>My claim is that this source proves nothing from what youve posted
How do you know that?

>you wouldnt read my sources
What sources in this very thread actually respond to my claim? I'm someone who debate a lot in OpenPsych forum, but you clearly failed to adress my points so far.

>If youve actually read it you can present the arguments yourself
It has been done, see the pics, try again.

>Ive probably responded to every one of your posts
I dunno if you're only talking about me but I'm not the only one who debated here but what I'm sure of is that you failed to honestly understand my points.

iit: Nigger cope

High IQ don't predict genius, even IQ apologist acknowledge that.

How do you know the "genetic" limit of a individual?
There is nothing concrete which actually show that, individual or groups.

>the items on the test

nigga it's not a quiz

it's basically spatial math

that shit's universal and has nothing to do with "culture"

Not him but you wasted everyone's time, if you're the guy claiming that using a blog as a source is wrong (especially when the blog use multiple sources), then you're retarded.
A shitton of researchers have their own blog, literally how they keep track about their researchs and views with other researchers.
You're just saying here that you'll not read everything which goes against your position

>High IQ don't predict genius
yes but the inverse is pretty much always true, isnt it weird?

also abnormally low Iq does predict mental health problems

How is knowing the exact limit, if a hard roof actually even exists, relevant to the idea of a genetic limit?

Imagine this test but with people that browse Yea Forums instead

Attached: image.jpg (278x351, 36K)

>your brain reacts to things you consider familiar

holy shit

this is your brain on /pol/ LMAO

>Doing something causes your brain to change
>Woooooaahh

>spatial math
see and journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959354314551163

Okay.
Good argument against Psychology being a science.

>IQ tests are tests of middle class knowledge and skills

IQ TESTS DO NOT INCLUDE "KNOWLEDGE", YOU FUCKING RETARD

THEY'RE FUCKING SPATIAL MATH PROBLEMS AND THE LIKE

THEY LITERALLY CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY "CULTURE" OR "EDUCATION"

YOU ARE LITERALLY FUCKING RETARDED

ALL OF YOUR POSTS ARE OF UNSCIENTIFIC GARBAGE

I didnt say using a blog as a source is wrong, i said *that* blog was trash and it is for reasons ive outlined and have been ignored, like every other aound criticism

>youre just saying you wont read anything that goes against your position
I read more than people read of my sources. Its a one way street for retarded faggots apparently. I offer criticism from what ive read and it doesnt get answered. I offer sources and i dont get retards like you to suck *me* off
>wasting peoples time
>my opponents just repeat read the sources over and over again and dont actually understand them

What is a waste of time is people that dont understand the subject matter holding up things they dont understand and just saying "disprove this", because they imagine somebody somewhere smarter than everyone supports their view

>niggers ITT think intelligence is not controlled by genes
so genes determine color, height, gender, and more but intelligence is given to you by magic or something?

See this is what im talking about

>bring up a point
>dude just look at my picture
>the picture doesnt address the point
>dude just read the sources for hours
Kill yourselves niggers

none of that has any basis in reality

"all human cognition takes place through cultural tools"

gtfo out of here

that is pure fantasy

you are literally retarded

>from what youve posted
From what youve posted
>your claim
Your claim isnt a claim its a denial of a claim
>i debate a lot
Yea it shows, youre a fucking retard and your opinions are from an echo chamber
>it has been done see pics
>*offers pic rebuttal*
>dude read the sources
Clockwork

>you failed to understand my points
You arent presenting your own arguments enough for ANYBODY to understand your points. Youre just jerking of some faggot and one or two sources like that means something

...

you're all fucking retarded

Attached: 1550954266763.gif (240x228, 905K)

This exactly. When something doesn't fit their political narrative they chalk it up to literal magic. They used to call this "magical thinking" in academic circles, but they don't use that term anymore, because now they actively encourage magical thinking and want to portray that nonsense as "real science" when it's just flat out bullshitting.

Evolution stops at the neck, except for skull size and shape, eye color blood, hair, propensity for certain mental illnesses, etc. Actually its just intelligence that hasnt diverged for some weird reason

no user its just different cultural tools hurr durr

>being this retarded
read the thread

mental traits=physical traits
retard

>pure fantasy
not a argument

samefagging won't change the criticism.

Thats more of a thrust of an argument than anything from anti iq fags so far