/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #14177659

33KiB, 273x315, Much+appreciated+_6d9a136e19203930a955df7de58a4bf4.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

IQ thread

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 10:15:05 2022 No.14177659 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>14180231 >>14180886 >>14181043 >>14181082 >>14181797

If IQ is hereditary, how come Einstein's children never contributed anything noteworthy?

Bohrs, Heisenberg, Curie, etc.
Pick your most iconic symbol of knowledge and wisdom and realized that none of them ever sired any child that had a fraction of their worth

Now, explain how IQ is correlated with genes

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 19:31:51 No.14179033 Report

Quoted By:

>>14177724
Einstein had 3 children
Bohrs had 6 children
Heisenberg had 7
Curie had 2, 1 had a nobel

You cannot do a survivor bias here, mate

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 19:34:09 No.14179045 Report

Quoted By:

>>14178496
Now most of the world is just a population of corporate pharmaceutical experiments.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 19:41:00 No.14179066 Report

Quoted By:

>>14178739
Being recognized in Hydraulic Engineering is like being recognized in some cult classic games

Sure, you are loved, but by all means, you are loved in a niche field with low competition

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 19:51:32 No.14179103 Report

Quoted By: >>14181001

>>14177724
Is being a scientist and a doctor really an achievement now?

That's really no more effort than being an artist and a businessman. You just pass the exams and that's all your diploma says

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 19:57:42 No.14179124 Report

Quoted By: >>14179143 >>14179734

It's something called "homozygosity". Basically Einstein's children could only physically inherit half of his intelligence increasing genes, the other half came from the bitch, and it's not guaranteed or even very likely that they shared intelligence increasing genes to make the kids homozygous as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 20:00:41 No.14179143 Report

Quoted By: >>14179154

>>14179124
Yes, and did their children inherit half of their skills?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 20:08:20 No.14179154 Report

Quoted By: >>14179161

>>14179143
What kind of question is that? You tell me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 20:09:31 No.14179161 Report

Quoted By:

>>14179154
Averages

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 20:34:59 No.14179268 Report

Quoted By:

>>14178465
It's just that no one gives a shit about your opinion, it has nothing to do with good/bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 22:35:21 No.14179681 Report

Quoted By:

>>14177819
>>14177828
This is bullshit

The success rate of children from the outstanding men was not any more noteworthy than the children of other specialized men.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 22:56:38 No.14179734 Report

Quoted By: >>14180325

>>14179124
Did you just call Mileva Mari? a bitch, you neet basement-dwelling loser? xD

She was the only woman at the Zürich polytechnic (because patriarchy) and was actually the co-author of her husband's work (as testified by Hans Albert).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO circumcision.png, 358KiB, 890x892

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 01:38:09 No.14180231 Report

Quoted By:

>>14177659
>>14178159
>Needing lotion to masturbate
Oof I feel bad for guys who were mutilated at birth like that. Imagine having your sexual pleasure gimped right after birth like that. It was over before you even knew it started.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 01:50:32 No.14180271 Report

Quoted By:

>>14177828
This is outdated btw. Nowadays, the best estimate is that the correlation between the IQs of twins raised apart is 0.85, which is also the correlation between IQ score and general intelligence. Malnutrition, bad parenting, lack of education can all depress one's IQ, but they have 0 effect on general intelligence.
Basically: general intelligence is 100% genetic. There's literally nothing more to it

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 02:07:15 No.14180325 Report

Quoted By:

>>14179734
So you mean to say all this time I had a poster of Einstein sticking his tongue out on my bedroom door and a framed pic of his postmortem brain on my desk and it was all for nothing? :'C
>feelsbadman.jpg

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 02:20:14 No.14180363 Report

Quoted By:

>>14178987
This, I'm surprised no one else pointed this out. The people who made great scientific contributions were not necessarily the brightest of the bright, they may have just had 130-140 IQ (which is still quite bright).
On the same coin, the brightest people may not have even bothered going academic (see: Christopher Langan).

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 02:32:15 No.14180384 Report

Quoted By:

>>14177819
This is the correct answer.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot 2022-02-02 at 18-33-5 (...).png, 150KiB, 1728x399

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 02:34:15 No.14180388 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 06:12:16 No.14180886 Report

Quoted By: >>14181055

>>14177659
IIRC 1 of Einstein's sons became a mentally ill and got locked up in a mental asylum or smth like that because his father didn't gave a shit about them and was just fucking other women left and right and neither helped them nor even paid attention to them and raised them

>If IQ is hereditary, how come Einstein's children never contributed anything noteworthy?

because you have to take in considerations the mothers' side, also your iq doesn't really matter when it comes to achieving something, it's mostly luck, meeting the right people, being born in the right time, being in a field that need more improvements etc. for example Einstein wouldn't be able to do shit if it wasn't for his wife, the scientist that teamed with him and taught him most of the stuff he needed to know, the fact that he had access to the latest scientific research of his time while working in The scientific journals "Annalen" and was able to see other people's work like Poincaré and Lorentz and plagiarize it, the fact that there was a war and he was on the winning team while other scientist were either getting killed or were much less known because the research were conducted secretly and then were brought to russia and the U.S under fake names and were never mentioned etc

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 06:58:51 No.14181001 Report

Quoted By: >>14181024 >>14181035

>>14179103
Pretty much anyone with an MD is successful, majority of PhDs are too.

>That's really no more effort than being an artist and a businessman. You just pass the exams and that's all your diploma says

A small minority of artists and businessmen are successful, the ones that are successful do have the aptitude to be scientists or doctors, but the rest don't. Any top tier businessman or artist probably could have chosen to become a scientist or doctor, but the majority would never have the grit to do either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 07:16:31 No.14181024 Report

Quoted By:

>>14181001
Yeah, because there are standards set before you earn your license to be in a professional field

You go and count the ones who applied to the course and failed and you would find that they have the same success rate as the fields that does not require a diploma

And that's just counting the ones that could afford the course

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 07:21:55 No.14181035 Report

Quoted By:

>>14181001
And by the way,
My point was "the effort needed"

Being a great scientist and a great artists require the exact same effort. One field should not be considered harder.
It's more useful but that's about it

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 07:26:09 No.14181043 Report

Quoted By:

>>14177659
>If IQ is hereditary, how come Einstein's children never contributed anything noteworthy?
IQ isnt measured by achievements, brainlet

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 81955641_p0.jpg, 276KiB, 1334x750

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 07:31:39 No.14181055 Report

Quoted By: >>14186728

>>14180886
On one hand, you are right
But on the otherhand, you seem to forget that Einstein is a mathematical prodigy.

He learned Geometry at age 12 just because he was gifted a book about it and he mastered it throughout his summer break

None of his children got even close to that

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO albert einstein stay with proble (...).jpg, 49KiB, 850x400

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 07:36:34 No.14181068 Report

Quoted By:

>>14177724
I think that the fact of just having a smart father is also something to consider. I bet that they learned a lot just hanging out with him.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1642751512093.jpg, 48KiB, 1080x439

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 07:44:14 No.14181082 Report

Quoted By: >>14181085 >>14181107

>>14177659
Parent IQ and child IQ correlate with an R-value of about 0.35 to 0.5 depending on the study.

That means child IQ has a weak to moderate correlation with parent IQ. Smarter parents will tend to have smarter kids, but it only biases somewhat in that direction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 07:46:45 No.14181085 Report

Quoted By: >>14181141

>>14181082
And did it match to .35 with Einstein's children?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 07:54:54 No.14181107 Report

Quoted By: >>14181127

>>14181082
Peanut butter?
George Washington Carver?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Peanut butter.jpg, 132KiB, 696x1013

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 08:02:06 No.14181127 Report

Quoted By:

>>14181107
Mah Nigga

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1643431714413.jpg, 178KiB, 1200x1282

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 08:07:19 No.14181141 Report

Quoted By: >>14181149 >>14181153

>>14181085
I don't know what his wife's IQ was or his children's IQs, but you shouldn't expect any one data point to to line up exactly with the trend curve.

Consider the attached pic, We may observe various factors correlating with crime, but if you add a new city to the graph, it's very unlikily to sit right on the trend line. Any given new point could be very far off the trend without invalidating the concept.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1643435176101.png, 353KiB, 1281x728

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 08:09:39 No.14181149 Report

Quoted By:

>>14181141
>Didn't post example with trend lines
Here's a better illustration

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1420906542904.png, 10KiB, 429x399

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 08:10:56 No.14181153 Report

Quoted By: >>14181229

>>14181141
>IQ is relevant until it isn't
Yeah, right. Sure

Maybe admit that it isn't a concrete measurement for anything then?

A prodigal genius who wrote 6 scientific studies without a single diploma, bore sons that are not even a 1% of his skill

What a fucking joke

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1420906542905.png, 49KiB, 600x573

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 08:49:49 No.14181229 Report

Quoted By: >>14181235

>>14181153
>Trend lines are invalid if they aren't ultra-predictive.

IQ only means something inasmuch as it correlates to things we care about, like staying out of jail, having a high income, avoiding unwanted pregnancies, etc. It is the one single best metric to predict employee success, far better than interviews, but it's illegal to base hiring decisions on them because some black people in the 70's couldn't get jobs at an electric company that hired on the basis of IQ score, and the Supreme Court made a ruling. There's an R-correlation of 0.72 with the average IQ of a country and the per-capita GDP, usefully informing us of the folly of third-world immigration.

The correlations vary in strength. It's not "concrete", but for some things it's very useful, in particular for making estimates about groups of people in aggregate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 08:51:29 No.14181235 Report

Quoted By: >>14181592

>>14181229
Ultra predictive my fucking ass

I am not asking for precise prediction.
I am asking for something that makes sense

How could a damn prodigy bore a son that is no more successful than a common doctorate.
Only explanation is that it isn't genetic at all

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Response_to_selection.jpg, 30KiB, 498x422

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 12:14:33 No.14181592 Report

Quoted By: >>14182658 >>14184965 >>14185277

>>14181235
Breeder's equation: R=h^2*S
Prodigy (4 s.d. above the mean) marries smart grad student (2 s.d. above the mean) - average 3 s.d. above the mean.
If h^2 is 0.8, they will have children with an average of 0.8*3 of 2.4 s.d above the mean. i.e. the prodigy (160IQ) has above average (136IQ) but not remarkable children.
Doctorates are not common, they're about 1-2% of the population.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 13:57:21 No.14181797 Report

Quoted By:

>>14177659
what about the parents of all these figures you mentioned? By that logic all of these men and women should have been brilliant as well

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 17:53:35 No.14182658 Report

Quoted By: >>14182939 >>14184986 >>14185277

>>14181592
>0.8
This is the key word

By this logic, everyone's child would be dumber than the parent

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 18:08:54 No.14182729 Report

Quoted By: >>14182811

>>14179011
Mozart's father was a musician. Was he passing his father's work as well?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 18:27:17 No.14182811 Report

Quoted By:

>>14182729
Unironically YES!
During Mozart's childhood, much of his work was actually that of his father's who marketed him as a prodigy so he would get more and better prices as a musical teacher

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 18:58:15 No.14182939 Report

Quoted By: >>14182952

>>14182658
>On average
Obviously there is a wide distribution of ability in children

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 19:01:07 No.14182952 Report

Quoted By: >>14182956

>>14182939
>wide distribution
Might as well say that it's a pseudoscience then.

It is accurate until it isn't

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 19:02:32 No.14182956 Report

Quoted By: >>14182962

>>14182952
You're genuinely dumb.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 19:03:34 No.14182962 Report

Quoted By: >>14182986

>>14182956
Lets be real, the sheer scale of unpredictability is comparable to horrorscopes

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 19:07:52 No.14182976 Report

Quoted By:

>>14177819
>>14178142
The duality of man

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 19:10:42 No.14182986 Report

Quoted By: >>14182998

>>14182962
You can predict very accurately the average child. Most people don't have more than 2 so this isn't that exciting except at a population level. If you selected 1000 individuals with iq tests to populate a planet you could predict the average IQ of the second generation. This is done all the time in selective breeding, it's not pseudoscience.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Futabu.jpg, 12KiB, 225x225

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 19:14:42 No.14182998 Report

Quoted By: >>14184965

>>14182986
Sure,
It works for the group but not the individual

The group has plenty of factors to consider
The individual only has genes to factor

It does not work for the individual therefore IQ isn't on genes

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO sneezy.png, 91KiB, 257x257

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 08:08:54 No.14184965 Report

Quoted By: >>14185431

>>14182998
>The group has plenty of of factors to consider
>The individual only has genes to factor
doesnt list any factors other than genetics in entire argument
retard logic implying unlisted factors are not correlated with genetics without evidence

I'm not the same anon, but population "factors" consist of all "factors" from the individuals within the population.

To summarize your argument in this post
>individual properties are independent of population properties
On it's own that statement is true, but not entirely true in a statistical context. All of these studies with IQ/wealth/genetic correlations are done in a statistical context. You will never be able to predict any event that has an element of randomness 100% of the time, and the genes of parents randomly mix and mutate. There is always a possibility for deviation from the norm, and it becomes less likely the further the deviation is from the norm. If individual events can't accurately be predicted 100% of the time, that doesn't disprove the distribution. The distribution has an expected outcome at the highest probability. For >>14181592 distributions, they are normally distributed and the highest probability occurs at the average. A single event (child) 1 or more standard deviations away occurs ~32% of the time. In other words, parental IQ / genes are accurate 2/3rds of the time in predicting that the child's IQ will be close to an average of the parents.

To summarize why your post I'm replying to is a brained dumbass retard take
>population properties are dependent on individual properties
>therefore individual properties "can be" predicted from population properties
notice I said "can be", as in not 100% of the time but reliably enough

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 08:21:48 No.14184986 Report

Quoted By:

>>14182658
I think the mean will pull down the above average and elevate the below average.

For a given racial population, there will be an average intelligence. Certain combinations of genes will get you unusually smart people, and usually dumb people. When these people are parents and contributing 50% of a child's genes, they will impact the child, but there will also be a pull towards the average with a random shuffling of genes.

TLDR: We can still absolutely do Eugenics and make smarter people.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Capture.png, 572KiB, 1010x823

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 10:29:03 No.14185277 Report

Quoted By: >>14185431

>>14181592
>>14182658
"S" in the breeders equation is the trait distance of the parents from the mean of their population, assuming a well mixed population with no structure. i.e. for a random white person it would the distance from the average IQ of 100.
But if you select second generation parents from the offspring of your initial selection the average of the population is no longer 100, the population average will be the average of the children, in this case 136. So imagine the prodigy and grad student have 100 children, with an average IQ of 136 and a standard deviation of 12, and then you come along and select the 2 kids with +2 s.d. IQs above the average and breed them, the 3rd generation will be 0.8*2*12+136, or an average IQ of 155 (ignoring problems of inbreeding depression, which is why you need purifying selection).

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1453853936184.jpg, 44KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 11:47:36 No.14185431 Report

Quoted By:

>>14184965
>>14185277
>reliably enough
Look, man
I have seen the reasoning. "Randomness, deviation, mutation" and other what have yous.
In the end, there are just your own biases

On math, it applies
Towards people, we have this circular "debate".

You know what? Let's just throw the towel here.

The only way this debate can TRULY be settled is for anyone to actually find emphirical biological evidences that IQ actually exists.
And by that, I mean actual DNA sequence responsible for the activity that we claim to be IQ

Then, we can ACTUALLY quantify a person's IQ not by tests, but by real brain scans.

Assuming that it even exists to start with
IQ is a product of psychology, not biology.

>>14185277
Your article is apples to oranges, mate
Physical traits are where genetics actually apply
IQ? You would have to explain why Einstein's lineage hasn't produced another prodigy in 7 generations and counting

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 18:46:36 No.14186728 Report

Quoted By:

>>14181055
>at age 12
That's only one year earlier than you're taught it in the fucking American school system, how is that prodigious?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches