Comments by "Toby" (@toby9999) on "The Bell Curve: The most controversial book ever in science | Richard Haier and Lex Fridman" video.

  1.  @mostbased  If IQ can be measured (and it can) then it's objective. The IQ discussion is not for people who value feelings over facts.
    31
  2. There is a biological basis. How else would you explain the obvious physical differences between peoples... Japanese, Scottish, African, Chinese etc? It's obvious without looking for 'proof'. Even the brain is physical. Why is there a difference between human brains, dog's brains and cat's brains in terms of intellect? The difference has to be genetic.
    5
  3. I've taken many IQ tests throughout my lifetime (now 60's) and my IQ has stayed pretty consistent. Nothing ambiguous about it. It also correlates well with the type of work I do and my school grades etc. I also grew up in a dysfunctional relatively poor family environment, perhaps even psychologically abusive - a very unhappy childhood. But I excelled at maths, physics and other abstract activities. It all correlates.
    4
  4. Yeah, I'm the dumbass who can't throw a ball, can't kick a ball, can't swim etc. but was top of my grade at maths and physics and have been a software developer for 30 years. While other kids were out in the park kicking balls around, I was reading science books. Most sport just bored me to tears. That said, I discovered roller skating in the 70's and loved it. Got hooked but I wasn't a natural. Took me years to learn what others picked up in months.
    4
  5. Both?
    4
  6.  @obzai  I believe you're correct on the muscle mass point. I was the skinniest kid in my class and no amount of effort ever changed that. I tried weight training (which bored me almost to death) but to no avail. I'm still skinny at age 60. My father was the same. Just naturally skinny.
    3
  7. We were given our scores. And our IQ test results played a significant role in determining which class we would be placed in. The highest went into 'A'. The next 'B' etc. down to 'G'. Makes perfect sense.
    2
  8.  @johne1743  No he wasn't. I see it as a free speech issue.
    2
  9.  @mazzerisk  It's settled enough to be useful. That was evidence back in the 70's when it was used extensively for grading in school. IQ testing was part of the entry process. It worked.
    2
  10. The correlation of IQ and success is irrelevant. We're talking about measuring a human trait or ability. It's measurable. What one does with it is a whole other thing.
    1
  11. Yes, it's obvious. I don't understand why there's a debate.
    1
  12. There might be a link but I would argue genetics is the biggest contributor as it is with every other physical trait.
    1
  13. Einstein didn’t have the highest IQ but he did have a very high IQ, easily within the top 1%. And saying he "cheated his way through college" actually says nothing about his IQ or his ability. So what's your point?
    1
  14.  @Everret.4392  The bottom line is that species evolved over time and it's obvious that cats, dogs, apes and humans have significantly different physical and mental attributes and capabilities and all of those difference are genetic. Dogs never give birth to apes or humans. A cat is never going to be a great chess player.
    1
  15. So, IQ does measure intelligence?
    1
  16.  @deepseadarew6012  The term 'race' is the wrong one but no, 'race' is not an arbitrary social construct. Can you not see any differences between folk from the African continent and let's say Scotland or Sweden or Japan?
    1
  17.  @deepseadarew6012  No, science (the scientific method) can not be racist.
    1
  18. Yeah, left wing cancel culture. I'm no fan of Stefan Molyneux but I think it sucks that he can be silenced that way.
    1
  19. What bullshit and what video?
    1
  20.  @philosphorus  Noam Chomsky, LOL. No offense intended. I just find myself disagreeing with everything he says except for his old research into language grammar, which intersects with one of my interests - computer science and compiler design.
    1
  21. Science is very often knowledge for knowledge sake e.g. curiosity. If it had been always about "what purpose does it serve" then science wouldn't have progressed in the way it has. I still want to know how the universe began. Does that serve any purpose? Nothing I can think of personally.
    1
  22. The importance of a value score is in it's explanatory value.
    1