IQ Cognitive ability and Intelligence

1. IQ is NOT a standard mesure of Cognitive Ability (CA) like Blood Pressure is for blood. ▪︎⇊ average CA → IQ average normal
2. CA is NOT Intelligence. It deteriorates with age. Still elders have ↑ experience-based Intelligence (e.g. W. Buffett in investing).

Chinese proverb 老马识途 (“An old horse knows the way.”) There is no general metric for experience-based (specific) intelligence.

Intelligence consists of 2 contradictory elements:
(1) The ability to learn (input experience / training)
(2) The ability to unlearn (question the existing training models) Similar for humans & Machine Learning.

There is a fundamental difference between learning & not-learning a training model Learning: needs ↑ CA (Cognitive Ability) Unlearning/not-learning: simple choice You need ↑ CA to learn the procedure of lobotomy. It’s just a choice to reject it as BS (& refuse to learn it)

Animals make intelligent survival decisions in the wild. They have low CA (Cognitive Ability) but make “paranoid” negative choices, too often reject all sounds as threatening. (rejecting = simple choice).
To enslave an animal you have to… train it!
Slavery = proper training.


On IQ and correlation (2)

A test, ANY TEST, claiming to make prediction of X must be accompanied by two metrics: sensitivity (detection of X) & specificity (exclusion of non X). Without those two metrics we would have no medical tests. Only BS. Exactly like the IQ-test literature: BS pseudoscience.

Statistical correlations (if not faked) often linked to high sensitivity / low specificity. It looks impressive… with no value. Example: we find students that excelled in math in Africa had a pencil. No pencil = awful at math. So, pencil is the secret of a math genius!

The second problem is tautological correlation. If you measure how much you can run in 60 seconds, when you’re 10 years old, it may be correlated with survival in the special forces at 20 years old. Why? Cause the context is almost tautological: physical exercise.

The same with IQ and a system were education & finance are becoming more abstract and complex. The same root causes that increase excellence in processing visual/abstract/verbal information (school, academy, video games) are pushing up the IQ, a measure also devised by academics.

Tautological correlation gives the impression of “discovery” of causality. It’s an illusion. IQ-test doesn’t even define the “X” that it predicts, let alone sensitivity or specificity of X. I’m not persuaded it’s is a test, in stat terms.


IQ and success

It’s unbelievable how BS is spreading like virus in modern academy. The IQ-success connection is a nice example. The claim by @jordanbpeterson that IQ is the “single most important factor of success” is both ridiculous & ignorant.

All metrics / tests have specificity and sensitivity. Great sensitivity of a test does NOT imply great specificity!

Example #1: having a driving lisence is a high sensitivity test (over 99%) to detect a good driver in a population. Having a lisence is the secret of good driving?

Example #2: having a healthy body is a high sensitivity test (over 99%) to detect an olympic medalist. So, having a healthy body is the “secret” of winning a medal? What is the specificity of this metric? Extremely low!

Example #3: having a healthy IQ (over 115) is a high sensitivity test (over 90%) to detect a CEO. Having this IQ is the secret of becoming CEO? What is the specificity? Low!

In general, the higher the sensitivity, the lower the specificity, and vice versa.
It’s shocking how academics like @jordanbpeterson and his colleauges don’t nuance their analysis of IQ with basic terms in statistics.

We’re talking about basic stuff – statistics 101.
ANY HEALTH METRIC is a potential “high sensitivity test” of measuring “success”, just by excluding failure (= test sensitivity). Basic mental & body health are expected to be found in all Olympic winners & CEOs. This is their secret of success?

The research on IQ actually shows that low IQ is connected to low “success” and NOT the opposite, if being “successful” means becoming a lawyer or CEO. Obviously, having cancer / lung disease / heart failure or… low IQ is a metric of low “success” in demanding positions.

I put “success” in parenthesis cause @jordanbpeterson gives a very narrow and materialistic definition. After 600BC the greek & western thought has developed a non-materialistic, deeper, complex & systemic understanding of success that Peterson obviously is unaware of.

The Grant Study at Harvard Medical School is the longest ( 75-year) longitudinal study researching metrics of life success. Even JF Kennedy participated. Very nice summary here:

The end-result of Harvard Grant Study confirms classical greek & graecochristian philosophy: the real secret of success is love (warmth of relationships) and NOT the IQ .

From the same Harvard Grant Study: “No significant difference in maximum income earned by men with IQs in the 110–115 range and men with IQs higher than 150.”


The problems with Left/Right and social scientists

-Left: SJW utopia is the solution. Why? capitalism fails!
-Right: capitalism is the solution. Why? communism fails!
-Social Scientists: IQ is secret of success. Why? low IQ fails!

Ideology is thinking you’ve found the secret of success because you’ve studied …the failure.

We have to remind our socialist friends that STATE TERRORISM (and throwing gays to jail) is not a “side effect” of Marxism, it’s the legitimate firstborn child. This is what happens when the “dictatorship of proletariat” gains the power of… you know… a dictatorship.

We have to remind our capitalist friends that CORPORATISM is not a “side effect” but a legitimate firstborn child of capitalism. The same with mass media hijacking social institutions & prostituting the news narrative to the highest bidder.

And finally, we have to remind our social scientists that 2% of US population (6.514.000 people!) are gifted with IQ over 130. If there was a “dominance hierarchy” of competence based on IQ, this 6M would have taken over US institutions a long time ago. They didn’t. Why?


In ANY health issue there is no metric for good health

Lets review the basics. In ANY health issue there is no metric for good health, only for bad health. What does this mean? It means that measuring effects of “lower IQ” doesn’t allow us to make scientific claims for “higher IQ”. Get it?

We can perform the same “magic trick” with blood pressure, in 3 categories low/medium/high & similar diagrams saying “high blood pressure” is linked to psychopathy. Oh my gosh! Good blood pressure is the secret of escaping psychopathy! Right? The same with glucose, IQ etc.

And guess what! We can also link blood pressure (or any other low health metric) with car accidents and other misfortunes. We can perform the same magic trick the astrologers of psychology just did with IQ & accidents.

The problem with social scientists is they build mono-parametric ideologies, that they consider “science”, avoiding to deal with the complex reality of health and success. Ironically, today the field attracting the lower IQ (social sciences & psychology) is fixated with IQ.