Lower-IQ Grandmasters?

The best measure of intelligence are High School education certificates that most people study for around the ages of 16-17. These demonstrate a capacity to learn genuinely useful human knowledge. However, I rarely see people make the same claims for these, as being a definitive measure of a person's intelligence, as they do for I.Q. tests. In general, people seem able to recognise that the ability to pass exams is often a function of personal motivation and circumstance as much as anything else.

By any objective standard I am a fairly intelligent person: I did well at school and at college, and I have a job that requires a fairly high degree of skill. But, I doubt I'd do well at an I.Q test since I've looked at the questions - finding the 'odd one out' in a list of patterns - and frankly they make little sense to me. Maybe if I studied I.Q. questions a bit it would make more sense - but that's the point, isn't it?

maybe you are not as smart as you think you are.

That's the fallacy of I.Q. tests: If you get a low score then you must not be smart. That's why they are pseudo science.

That's the thing, you can study for a test at school, but you can't study to do well on an IQ test (well, you can, but it's not the same, it's more like helping yourself do the best you can).

The definition of pseudo science isn't "things I personally dislike."

They're standardized tests that have predictive power whether you agree with them or not.

And for all you disagree, it sounds like you don't even know what it is you're disagreeing with. You just don't like the idea of a person's worth being reduced to a number... a better way to combat uncomfortable feelings like that is to remind yourself that there's more to life than intelligence (which is very true, being a smart human is like being the smartest idiot )

The definition of pseudo science is making claims for something that are not backed up by evidence and the claims made by I.Q. proponents are not backed up by evidence.

he doesnt deny climate change. He is 1.skeptical of how those scientists reach a consensus of any significant import ,especially involving drastic fiscal policies(if a science like meteorology which is supposed to predict in the short term what is going on has a relatively abysmal prediction rate for a science, imagine predicting 50 year models involving our globe). 2. He is skeptical of a Science whose existence has significant political import. if you "follow the money"you too would be a bit concerned.

but even then, lets say he is just plain wrong on climate change (Ben Shapiro , another well known figure among conservatives, takes the cautious route on the issue), it is not his area of specialty one bit and he himself admits that. why does it matter?

You're either trolling or you know nothing about it.

Either way I don't really care to be honest  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're set in your ways. I get it.

obviously, the test must be taken in good faith, under non-radical conditions (no distress, healthy ,well rested etc) for it to be satisfactory. Only a fool would deny that.

this WAS an issue with certain populations , like high functioning autistics that scored very low because of the verbal nature of some tests as well as a general unwillingness to sit down and just take the test seriously/focus on it, but this has long been known now. IF these factors are known, they are accounted for, or the test is deemed inadequate.

Exactly. Follow the money. Who profits from denying climate change 

AFAIK meteorology has little to do with climate science, but I don't know much about it.

Anyway, you ask why it matters to me.

Because even very intelligent people's brains seem to turn to balls of idiot-jelly when facts go against their ideology. I haven't met a single person who was strongly ideologically aligned (whether it was politics of any kind, religion of any kind, or something else) who I didn't think was an idiot when dealing with ideas that go against their beliefs.

So I was googling him to see if he was one of these... ideological warriors who are allergic to facts.

What I.Q. supporters wont admit is that the tests are at best an approximation of some people's intelligence. They are no absolute guide, yet that is how the results are usually presented by right wing racists who want to discriminate against people.

It's better to argue that there's no absolute definition of intelligence, which is true, and I agree with that.

But IQ tests are standardized and have predictive power. They're not pseudo science.

its called margin of error. with IQ margins of error are not that significant. you will virtually never be off by a standard deviation unless the initial conditions made the test invalid to begin with.

Googling IQ by country, I see some African countries are listed as having average IQs below 70... which is ridiculous. Obviously there are problems with test results like that. 

For example, googling literacy rates, I see the lowest in the world are countries in Africa... this would certainly make people do poorly on regular IQ tests, and literacy has nothing to do with intelligence (well it does, but you know what I mean).

lets see, millions of dollars of federal funds vs alt right ann coulter fans selling books....

meteology is a specific subset of climate science. OF course they are related. 

Scientific consensus doesn't mean all the scientists in the USA. Scientists exist outside of the USA too.

But ok, as a counter example in the USA, I'd say oil lobbyists would be interested in making scientific facts a political issue.

Ok, but it's disingenuous to compare climate to the limited predictive power of the 7 day forecast which is talking about weather on a specific day. Climate deals with averages over many years.

not as ridiculous as you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Cyu9SD8Lk

ignore the title which is sadly clickbait, and the toxic comment sections. But the results were intriguing, because they used IQ tests from the top university in south africa which eliminates a part of the "its lack of education" explanation. The only part im not clear on is if there is strong affirmative action in South Africa which may have affected the results.

they are also other studies in Australia for example, that show aborigines (who score pretty low on iq tests as a whole) even when raised by  adopted "white" parents still dont fully overcome the average iq gap between caucasians and aborigines, so writing it off as entirely nurture seems difficult.

I watched it. Ok, that's interesting to me.

It's the people who freak out about facts who I find annoying

Are people the same? No.

Is it plausible that Africans (or any group), as a whole, are dumb? Sure.

You know... people shouldn't be afraid of this stuff.

Now... are people not worthy of respect because they're not as smart? Or are they less human? Of course not... but I think people who get offended are somehow thinking that's what's being said.