IQ maps of Europe and the World (PISA scores)

[Svevlad]

Super intelligent people are often untalented for real life.

When my mother was in high school in her class was guy who was genius. He didn't study outside of school and was the best student. He remembered and understood everything from the professor's lectures in classes. He was especially superior in mathematics. After high school when came to the university he thought he will finish without any studying outside of classes like in high school. It was too much for him regardless his super high IQ, and he left the university. He did not marry and create family, but became an alcoholic and died relatively young.

Winthropian... Balkanoid midwits (90 IQ) wouldn't get it...

[Supercomputer]

Because I can't repeat saying exactly the same things, here's my comment in that thread:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post7865233

Synopsis: PISA testing is not really reliable. Mainly because it's done on students, who really don't give the effort that's needed to do it, as most openly say they give an effort of 6-7/10 in the barometer of effort embeded on the end of the test itself. Plus, PISA tests do not measure actual global intelligence, as they're limited in three fields, that require some academic knowledge, in that case, up until early high school: mathematics, physics and reading. And, on top of that, the OECD and other parallel research, as I also linked in my reply, has indicated that students would give actual effort if they were told that this test would count in their grades. Which makes absolutely sense considering they strive for the best performance on school that they can attain.

Actual IQ tests measure pattern recognition, visual and acoustic processing and the speeds, and short-term and long-term memories. Aka, they want to see how neurons basically activate and how well they function, because as of right now, we still don't have scanning technology to precisely see how a human's brain functions during thinking holistically. These don't require academic knowledge, but basic thinking. And, unlike PISA, IQ tests are done on adults mostly, preferably those who have completed basic or tertiary education. Completely different situations.

The only thing that's interesting is how the scores for these tests were converted into IQ points. Interesting graph, but I still disagree, as there are notable fallacies.



Don't forget Sweden, it excluded 11% of its students in 2018, as it was discovered in 2021. And they probably did it again.

And China consistenly chooses only 4 cities to represent it.

Singapore has a program in its curriculum that prepares students who'll take the test, which would make sense in how much of a difference they present compared to all other nations who participated.

Didn't Swedes exclude immigrants? To be fair, excluding immigrants isn't cheating. Including them is what is actually unfair to Sweden.

[Zeno]

Didn't Swedes exclude immigrants? To be fair, excluding immigrants isn't cheating. Including them is what is actually unfair to Sweden.

Well, not all of them, a much bigger than 11% percentage of their student population is non-Swedish. I guess they excluded the most unfit. But still, PISA gives a margin rate of up until 5% exclusion. Not more than double of that.

[Oghuz]

IQ tests are not pseudoscientic. IQ is the most predictably valid psychometric and has survived more ideologically motivated attacks than anything else in psychology. The people who deny IQ and it's importance are ideologues who don't know what they're taking about. Weather or not IQ is genetic or environmental has been studies to death for last 60 years and data says it's about at least 2/3 genetic barring extreme environments like malnutrition. 84% of intelligence experts think Black and White IQ gap is at least somewhat connected to race. The idea all populations have exactly the same predispositions to intelligence is as stupid as saying all populations have exactly the same predisposition to height or lactose intoleranca. It isn't supported by any data and it doesn't make sense evolutionary.

Nothing stands in front of the molecular realities. These psychological evaluations are relative at best which is why they are, like taxonomy, a pseudoscience with no actual scientific basis. They give you rough ideas at best but would not give you actual measurements of dynamic neuro-synaptic processes at molecular levels that I have written about before. I keep on writing dynamic because some authors in the past have tried to relate IQ with static imaging of the brain through MRI but that even that concept is now obsolete among neurochemists let alone 19th century IQ tests. For someone interested, the day we can get NMRs with 30+ Tesla superconducting magnets probably then we will be able to compare the "intellectual stimuli" of two individuals at the atomic level to rate them.

You know what the biggest fault in IQ tests are? Compared groups/samples are NEVER EVER "normalized" before evaluation. They will always have variable characteristics like growing up in different envoironments that directly influence their cognitive development. Lets say one ethnic group had an amazing natural sciences education system so people develop cognitive skills but same ethnicity in a bordering country had no such development because of a weak educational system. The entire IQ test logic just falls on its face right there because these variables lead to variations in scores that are more reflective of their socio-political differences rather than their inherent intellect.

[Supercomputer]

Nothing stands in front of the molecular realities. These psychological evaluations are relative at best which is why they are, like taxonomy, a pseudoscience with no actual scientific basis. They give you rough ideas at best but would not give you actual measurements of dynamic neuro-synaptic processes at molecular levels that I have written about before. I keep on writing dynamic because some authors in the past have tried to relate IQ with static imaging of the brain through MRI but that even that concept is now obsolete among neurochemists let alone 19th century IQ tests. For someone interested, the day we can get NMRs with 30+ Tesla superconducting magnets probably then we will be able to compare the "intellectual stimuli" of two individuals at the atomic level to rate them.

You know what the biggest fault in IQ tests are? Compared groups/samples are NEVER EVER "normalized" before evaluation. They will always have variable characteristics like growing up in different envoironments that directly influence their cognitive development. Lets say one ethnic group had an amazing natural sciences education system so people develop cognitive skills but same ethnicity in a bordering country had no such development because of a weak educational system. The entire IQ test logic just falls on its face right there because these variables lead to variations in scores that are more reflective of their socio-political differences rather than their inherent intellect.

Neuroscience and molecular DNA testing of IQ isn't as advanced yet to infer someone's IQ as much as an IQ test so the IQ testi is the best we have right now. Taxonomy isn't a pesuoscience and so it's psychology. The "show me the gene/neurological mechanism" argument is a copout until science becomes advanced enough to infer IQ based on data derived from it. Until then IQ tests are perfectly valid tool to infer IQ and group differences in IQ. There is ample evidence that group difference in IQ is mostly genetic ranging from admixture studies, subtest heritability, twin studies and adoption studies etc. People who try to dismiss all this evidence with "show me the gene/mechanism" are sore loser who have trouble accepting inconvenient facts.

[tita]

Winthropian... Balkanoid midwits (90 IQ) wouldn't get it...

Claiming that balkanoids have lower iq than greeks is stupid, they have exactly the same genetic, they are even more in the north

[Rostos vilmoskörte]

Well, not all of them, a much bigger than 11% percentage of their student population is non-Swedish. I guess they excluded the most unfit. But still, PISA gives a margin rate of up until 5% exclusion. Not more than double of that.

non citizens are excluded and should be excluded.

[Oghuz]

Neuroscience and molecular DNA testing of IQ isn't as advanced yet to infer someone's IQ as much as an IQ test so the IQ testi is the best we have right now.

This is not how sciences work that just because we are not advanced enough in some field yet so let's just replace the facts with assumptions without normalizing the samples first.

Taxonomy isn't a pesuoscience and so it's psychology.

Taxonomy is a pseudoscience because cranial measurements often have no relationship with genetics. Ask me for examples and I will give some.

The "show me the gene/neurological mechanism" argument is a copout until science becomes advanced enough to infer IQ based on data derived from it. Until then IQ tests are perfectly valid tool to infer IQ and group differences in IQ.

Molecular facts matter far more than 19th century pseudoscientific theories behind "tests" for taxonomy and psychology etc. Even if we go by your logic then please answer me on this, I asked you before but you did not answer

- How does PISA normalize the two samples before comparing them when it's a FACT that cognitive development reflects environmental growth? When two groups received no standardized environment growing up, how can they be compared?

- If IQ is reflective of genetics only then how come we have Mongoloids, Turko-Iranics, Caucasians, Indopaks scoring similarly in hard sciences H-Index or intellect sports like Chess?

[Supercomputer]

This is not how sciences work that just because we are not advanced enough in some field yet so let's just replace the facts with assumptions without normalizing the samples first.



Taxonomy is a pseudoscience because cranial measurements often have no relationship with genetics. Ask me for examples and I will give some.



Molecular facts matter far more than 19th century pseudoscientific theories behind "tests" for taxonomy and psychology etc. Even if we go by your logic then please answer me on this, I asked you before but you did not answer

- How does PISA normalize the two samples before comparing them when it's a FACT that cognitive development reflects environmental growth? When two groups received no standardized environment growing up, how can they be compared?

- If IQ is reflective of genetics only then how come we have Mongoloids, Turko-Iranics, Caucasians, Indopaks scoring similarly in hard sciences H-Index or intellect sports like Chess?

Nothing behind IQ and race science is assumptions. Races evolved. Evolution is not an assumption. If anything about IQ was pseudo scientific, IQ would be gone from science a long time ago given how politically controversial it is since the undisputed racial and sex differences. But it's still here after 100 years and 70 years of entire cultural zeitgeist being that of anti racism, egalitarianism and equality.

Oh please, even the leftie "anti racist" Wikipedia doesn't classify taxonomy as psudoscience.

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody denies there are environmental factors that contribute to IQ and PISA scores? That doesn't make PISA scores less valid. But to say that since there are environmental factors, that must mean there are no genetic factors is a logical fallacy. There can be both. And the idea all populations have the same potential for intelligence is ludicrous and extremely unlikely under evolutionary logic.

[Kess]

What is your IQ score OP?