Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "The Bell Curve: The most controversial book ever in science | Richard Haier and Lex Fridman" video.

@Bob First of all, IQ data in the US is not how it works. The test is not normalized at all, especially the language test. Because by simple math, a person speaking 2 language divide their brain into 2 section, each account for a different language, therefore the proficiency will be less than a person only knowing one kind of language well. Chinese American speaking 2 languages will have a harder time speaking English because Chinese or Mandarin is infinitely more complex, more complex language equals more work. IQ tests are really bad inaccurate research. Is there a difference between genetics, yes. Even within the same race, every individual is different. But they're all roughly equal if you account for the same environmental factor. The top 1% of the smartest Caucasian has nothing over the top 1% of the smartest Asians or the top 1% of the smartest African. Throughout the courses of history, the development frontier of science varies all around the world because each area over the globe develop at different rates. Sometimes the Egyptians were the smartest, sometimes it's the Indian, sometimes it's the Chinese, sometimes it's the British, sometimes it's the German, sometimes it's the Jewish people, sometimesit's the American. The IQ level and result afterwards based greatly on environmental factors, pal. Keep it real.
3
Look, the books, that specific book in that chapter is wrong, because they failed to acknowledge in the contaminated pool of applicants. If you lock a genius up in the mountains, no education, no exposure, he or she will score insanely low on those IQ tests. You have certain degree of education, it is equivalent to a certain minimum score. You re-examine the data today and the Chinese will crush the US pool of applicants. Not because the Chinese are inherently better at anything, but because they went through a far rigorous educational system. There is always difference among groups of people, but that's overwhelmingly due to differences in environmental factor. The top 1% of the smartest Caucasian, Asian, African are roughly equally smart with negligble differences.
2
Probably the same reason when the Egyptians and the Indians start building wonders of the worlds, the Europeans are just fire worshipper and snake eaters. Development in science come via breakthrough of individuals, darling, not by any race of any kind. Sometimes the Egyptian made a breakthrough, sometimes the Indians make a breakthrough, sometimes it's the Chinese, sometimes it's the Britain, Empire rises and falls on the backs of extraordinary individuals, not due to their culture, but due to their own excellence. The top 1% of the smartest African is nearly equal to the top 1% of the smartest Caucasian and the top 1% of the smartest Asian. Show some respect.
1
@chesshooligan1282 Have you ever paused to consider that the people in Africa doesn't really care that much about chess? No chess youth training and therefore the number of people playing the game is less? Over the last 100 years, the number of Russian chess champions are ovewhelming, does that mean Slavic origin people are smarter than non Slavic origin people? You use a ridiculous set of standards. People in Africa has far bigger concern than playing chess. The same goes with Fields Medal Winner, for the last 100 years, a lot has been going on in Africa in that span, darling, that entire continent is not even a peaceful continent yet. The same goes with the Nobel Prize. All of those things existed within the last 100 years, the human race have existed for over 4000 years. A lot longer before that, Egypt is the cradle of civilization. The Alexandria Library, scholars from everywhere travel to Egypt. So back then does it make the Egyptian the smartest people on Earth? Kid, you need to learn to distinguish is what is really intelligence, what are meaningless titles. An award, chess player, Nobel prize, Fields medal, they're just awards in particular field, most notably awarded to people with discovery, not intelligence. Go study real science and you'll see how accidental discovery plays a massive role in those awards, not intelligence, hard work and discovery. The Nobel prizes have only existed for 120 years. During that 120 years, colonialism, world war and terrorism destroyed 2 major continents in Asia and Africa. The reason America has the most Nobel prizes is not because Americans are the most intelligent, it's because shortly after the Nobel Prize was invented, 2 massive world war happened and America was protected due to it's geographical location. The European intellectuals immigrated to America, bringing along their education and research works, thus make America has the most Nobel Prizes, but the origin of such intellects and knowledge comes from Europe, and even before that, the Europeans took their knowledge from the Egyptians and Indians.
1
@chesshooligan1282 Go learn some math, darling. The one clinging onto the lie here is you. The achievement and advancement of science and engineering has very little to do with intelligence level, it has a lot to do with the appropriate external environment and funding. Those universities built on the wealth you stole from other continents, the privileges and perks of oppression fueled the future generation of scholars. Before America, it was British, before British, it was France, before France, it's Italy and Spain, before that, it's Rome, before Rome, it's Greece, before Greece, it's Egypt, China and India. Knowledge is passed down from all over the world, every continents, every race made their contributions. It's the eventual brutality and outstanding military individuals that shifted the power of balance. The only reason America is at the privileged of funding every single student loans as well as acquiring the latest scientific equipments to their labs has nothing to do with American's intellectual superiority, it's because American government manipulated the currency via their petroleum policy that gives America a surplus flow of wealth. Just like how America got to the Moon, via a German scientist.
1
@chesshooligan1282 The things you thought are proof of "intelligence", they're really not. They're proof of your ignorance. A simple example is that war gives a certain country more money, with more money, they can invest more in their academic environment, leading to a person just as smart living in that country achieves a better outcome. For the last 70 years out of the last 100, African countries can't even have enough food due to government instability. Even if the people there are just as smart, there's nothing they can do. Even Einstein would've been shot to dead in Germany if it hadn't been for his immigration to Switzerland
1
Just go learn some math, darling. And there are 3 notable scientific Nobel prizes, not just physics, also Chemistry and Medicine.
1
@chesshooligan1282 Again, kid. They don't care about chess. If you think that Carlsen guy is one of the smartest individual in the world you're adorable. Chess is a game of memorization, a handheld calulator can play better chess than a person.
1
@chesshooligan1282 Nope, there aren't enough, darling. And the number of African rooted people in other continent have other things to worry about as well. In case you hadn't noticed, black people in America didn't have that well of a life until 40 years ago. Show some respect. And again, kid, you're still obsessed with this false assumption with chess being the king of intelligent measurement. That's absolutely not what it is. Chess is a game of memorization, not intelligence. I don't know if you even know how to play chess but a Nobel Prize winning physicist or a Fields Medal Winner will easily lose to a 14 year old chess player because those other people don't play chess. Get out of the delusion, little kid. Life doesn't revolve around chess, people who still think chess is sign of intelligence are the dumbest ones, it's a memorization game.
1
@chesshooligan1282 What you're talking about, kid. It's specific field achievement. Had you watched the entire video, the G-factor, that is "General Intelligence" has nothing to do with those achivements. One Nobel Prize winner isn't proof a person being more intelligent than a non Nobel Prize winner. It's just an award, award mostly given to discovery.
1
@chesshooligan1282 Again, kid. All of those fields are measured within the last 100 years and in the last 100 years, things are going on around the world. You dumb Americans are bad in geography and history. But anyway, by including computer science, you made a horrible mistake. The most sought after computer engineers are always Indians, Palestinians as well as Iranians, and right now even Chinese. So there, your argument falls apart, the newly excited field of computer science in a way showcases the superiority of another race compared to Caucasians. But again, that's not inherently due to race nature, it's because those specific countries intentionally focus on that field training. Again, field specific achievement. Don't use metaphor when you're incapable of understanding them, kid. Comparing between races is not comparing between humans and cheetahs. It's like comparing the Northern Africa rhino with the Southern Africa Rhino. Barely any differences except in the numbers. Go learn some real math, kid. You've been destroyed.
1
@chesshooligan1282 No, pal. You're a reality denier. That book also claimed pretty clearly that the Asians have a higher IQ scores on general compared to the Caucasians. Are you dumber than the Asians?
1
@Leo-xj8hw The explaination is that Feynman did not took the test seriously at all. Because that result makes no sense, Feynman teach the same kind of logical thinking behavior at prestigious university, he's an expert in mathematics and physics understanding, the work on the IQ test is just a subset of his work in advanced physics. So he had already scored very high on the IQ test even before he takes the IQ test. That one test is not the proof of his low IQ nor is it proof of the irrelevance of the IQ test. It's proof that Feynman happened to take the IQ test once and got an average score. Feynman could've been drunk, he could've been uninterested. Go learn some math and you'll see.
1
@Leo-xj8hw That's the wrong point, because that's only one test and it made no sense for him to score 124. He literally teaches the things that require that ability to score high on those tests to understand. So again, go learn some math, little darling. The "test" is literally just a collection of questions that people think shall correctly estimate one's intelligence. There can be many type of test developed by many researchers, some of the tests may even be physics or mathematical tests, which also indicates a very high intelligence and Feynman shall ace those tests because he literally does those tests everyday in his classes and his research. So pal, whatever the case is, if the test is correct, and if Feynman did his best, it's impossible for him to score low. Like I said, the explaination is that Feynman didn't take the test seriously. And you shall need more than one test to proof something. So keep it real and go learn some math.
1
@Leo-xj8hw Now are those IQ test perfect? No, nothing in the human world is perfect, but your nonsensical claim of the test wrongly estimates the IQ of an individual such drastically is just ridiculous. And to think of it, that test Feynman took was probably in the 1960s. IQ tests have taken huge steps since that time.
1
Look, it's impossible to get a clear uncontaminated pool of applicants from different race with the same environmental factor. An individual of matured age went through 18 years of external environmental impact causing many many differences. Are there any difference between races? Yes, of course there are. Are those differences measurable or provable through the mechanism of that book? Hell no, there are too much inaccuracies to the method that it's not a valid experiment. There's an easy to test the theory in the book. You raise 5000 babies identically separated from the environment from infant to adulthood exactly the same, the same nutrition and education, same language after 18 years, have them do the test. Of course, that's inhumane but that's the scientific way to go.
1
@ElJefe3126 Then it means their superiority in logic or math surpass the language barrier. Keep it real, homie. It's just an example of how the test is just poorly designed and it never accounts for environmental differences. Of course East Asian scores higher, East Asian mathematical education is infinitely more rigorous than yours. Doesn't mean East Asians are "smarter". Go study some real math and real science, pal. The result is absolutely meaningless if you have no control over the parameters of the research.
1
@damienroberts934 First of all, it's very disrespectful to say every scientific advance and technology relies on zero female input. Have some class. The correct thing to say is majority of them relies on very little female input. To any pool of applicants, there are always outliers. There are extraordinary individuals in history that will put an absolute majority of men to shame, it's just that there are more extraordinary male individual than female.
1
@Bridge2110 Actually you can explain them by environmental differences, dummy. Because within that book, it's even clearer that the Jewish population scores even higher against the non Jewish white population, and the Asian population scored even higher than the Jewish population. So oops, if the US were all Asian, then the country should be even better than being all white? Go learn some math, dummy. There are very little difference among people in the free world except for their culture. Genetics play a part, but that part applies to less than 0.1% of the population.
1
@Bridge2110 Because Jewish culture and Asian culture are drastically different from the vulgar American culture? Asians scored even higher than Jews, so are you inferior to about 3 billions Asians all over the world?
1