What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

I've never taken an IQ test. Do they require any reading skill?

I don't remember but it probably depends on how old you are.

I remember there being a lot of seeing how fast you can do a puzzle and remembering patterns and that sort of thing. I always had to test the new IQ tests for my Dad.

[Barrister]

I agree.

I mean I don't like the idea that just because this is something that racists might use it should be totally forbidden to research, but also nothing I've ever said this is a particularly meaningful topic either.

I was just commenting, not disagreeing. Most people do not even seem to know what an IQ test is and what its purpose is. It is a diagnostic tool for psychologists to help people, not a way to find our which rocket scientist is more brilliant or whatever.

OK - but while we don't use IQ tests themselves for such purposes, but we do use standardized tests that are basically IQ tests.

The one I'm most familiar with is the LSAT (obviously).  The LSAT does not test for specific knowledge - you can not study for the LSAT.  It has sections on reading comprehension and logical reasoning.  It is basically an IQ test.

The thing with being basically an IQ test is you 100% can practice and get better at test-writing strategies - but you can't sit down and say "I'm just going to study so hard I get a perfect score".  The LSAT is measuring something beyond just your ability to write tests.

So now you got me wondering - is there a race-difference in LSAT scores?

https://www.lsac.org/sites/default/files/research/tr-22-01_june-2023-edition_accessible.pdf

(LSAC is the organization that puts out the LSAT)

It's kind of buried but it looks like whites/asians have a mean score of about 152, while blacks have a mean score of about 142.

So like that's not nothing, but it's only the mean score.  That doesn't tell you anything about any individual candidate.  And still there are confounding variables.  Like I said you can't study for the LSAT, but you can practice it and learn some techniques.  I remember when I first stated prepping for the LSAT I thought "hey this is really easy" - but that was because I wasn't timing myself.  Once you realize how limited your time is it becomes really hard.  I've read that you can probably study and improve 5-10 points pretty easily, beyond that less likely.

So if you adjusted for both income and amount of time spent prepping would the difference disappear?  Maybe, maybe not.  I'm not sure how important that is of a topic to look at.

(by the way do you want to know the highest testing group?  "No response" at around 155)

(also by the way - LSAT scores range from 120 to 180.  Median is supposed to be 150 and it forms a bell curve with most people clustering around the middle.  So the difference between a 145 and 155 is not all that substantial)

[DGuller]

Does it even matter what the purpose of the IQ test is?  IQ is correlated with all kinds of measures of success in life, and that correlation remains regardless of what the claimed purpose of IQ tests is.

IMO, it was a grave mistake to respond to the Bell Curve by essentially debunking the concept of IQ tests.  IQ tests are a valid and meaningful concept, and any time you cede such concepts to the nutcases, you create a gateway to extremism.  After all, if the racists are right about IQ, and frankly they're more right about it than "IQ just measures how good you are at taking IQ tests" people, then what else are they right about?

[Valmy]

Does it even matter what the purpose of the IQ test is?  IQ is correlated with all kinds of measures of success in life, and that correlation remains regardless of what the claimed purpose of IQ tests is.

IMO, it was a grave mistake to respond to the Bell Curve by essentially debunking the concept of IQ tests.  IQ tests are a valid and meaningful concept, and any time you cede such concepts to the nutcases, you create a gateway to extremism.  After all, if the racists are right about IQ, and frankly they're more right about it than "IQ just measures how good you are at taking IQ tests" people, then what else are they right about?

So the purpose of the test has no bearing on what the test is designed to measure? I never claimed that "IQ just measures how good are at taking IQ tests". It is an important diagnostic tool used by psychologists to get people the help they need. And the only people taking IQ tests are ones going to psychologists or are taking part in some study. Surely that selects for a certain part of the population.

But you are a statistics guy. How can you look at the data being presented where the majority of the world population is in the bottom 15%? How likely is that data to be legit?

[Barrister]

Does it even matter what the purpose of the IQ test is?  IQ is correlated with all kinds of measures of success in life, and that correlation remains regardless of what the claimed purpose of IQ tests is.

IMO, it was a grave mistake to respond to the Bell Curve by essentially debunking the concept of IQ tests.  IQ tests are a valid and meaningful concept, and any time you cede such concepts to the nutcases, you create a gateway to extremism.  After all, if the racists are right about IQ, and frankly they're more right about it than "IQ just measures how good you are at taking IQ tests" people, then what else are they right about?

So the purpose of the test has no bearing on what the test is designed to measure? I never claimed that "IQ just measures how good are at taking IQ tests". It is an important diagnostic tool used by psychologists to get people the help they need. And the only people taking IQ tests are ones going to psychologists or are taking part in some study. Surely that selects for a certain part of the population.

But you are a statistics guy. How can you look at the data being presented where the majority of the world population is in the bottom 15%? How likely is that data to be legit?

See I disagree that psychologists are the only ones using IQ tests.

MENSA seems kind of big on them.  I know IQ tests, or some kind of mental acuity tests, are still be used in school to identify high achievers (or low achievers).

But yes - I strongly don't believe the median IQ in sub-saharan Africa is under 65.  That's mentally impaired level.

[Valmy]

OK - but while we don't use IQ tests themselves for such purposes, but we do use standardized tests that are basically IQ tests.

The one I'm most familiar with is the LSAT (obviously).  The LSAT does not test for specific knowledge - you can not study for the LSAT.  It has sections on reading comprehension and logical reasoning.  It is basically an IQ test.

The thing with being basically an IQ test is you 100% can practice and get better at test-writing strategies - but you can't sit down and say "I'm just going to study so hard I get a perfect score".  The LSAT is measuring something beyond just your ability to write tests.

So now you got me wondering - is there a race-difference in LSAT scores?

https://www.lsac.org/sites/default/files/research/tr-22-01_june-2023-edition_accessible.pdf

(LSAC is the organization that puts out the LSAT)

It's kind of buried but it looks like whites/asians have a mean score of about 152, while blacks have a mean score of about 142.

So like that's not nothing, but it's only the mean score.  That doesn't tell you anything about any individual candidate.  And still there are confounding variables.  Like I said you can't study for the LSAT, but you can practice it and learn some techniques.  I remember when I first stated prepping for the LSAT I thought "hey this is really easy" - but that was because I wasn't timing myself.  Once you realize how limited your time is it becomes really hard.  I've read that you can probably study and improve 5-10 points pretty easily, beyond that less likely.

So if you adjusted for both income and amount of time spent prepping would the difference disappear?  Maybe, maybe not.  I'm not sure how important that is of a topic to look at.

(by the way do you want to know the highest testing group?  "No response" at around 155)

(also by the way - LSAT scores range from 120 to 180.  Median is supposed to be 150 and it forms a bell curve with most people clustering around the middle.  So the difference between a 145 and 155 is not all that substantial)

Sure. And you can see there is a bit of difference there. But it does not say black people are in the bottom 1% of the world population. 142 is a bit lower than 150. But the IQ test people racist are claiming the average African is scoring basically 120. Maybe if we did a thorough test the average African would be 95 or 92. Maybe. That would not be great but it would be a reasonable response. But 65? Come on. That is ridiculous and that is the claim.

[crazy canuck]

I agree.

I mean I don't like the idea that just because this is something that racists might use it should be totally forbidden to research, but also nothing I've ever said this is a particularly meaningful topic either.

I was just commenting, not disagreeing. Most people do not even seem to know what an IQ test is and what its purpose is. It is a diagnostic tool for psychologists to help people, not a way to find our which rocket scientist is more brilliant or whatever.

OK - but while we don't use IQ tests themselves for such purposes, but we do use standardized tests that are basically IQ tests.

That is actually exactly how we use IQ tests. They are in fact used as part of diagnostic tools to identify learning disabilities, as just one example.  The data generated from those diagnostic sessions then determine whether a student is eligible for accommodations in both grade schools and university. Typically to be eligibile they need to test two standard deviations below their score when they undertake tasks which are not affected by the disability.

[Valmy]

But yes - I strongly don't believe the median IQ in sub-saharan Africa is under 65.  That's mentally impaired level.

Well that is the main thing I am taking objection to. They try to spin this thing that there are some mental differences between different "races" which are (or were) genetically isolated groups. Maybe there are some slight differences there that aren't just cultural or whatever. It does seem suspect that white people are almost average at everything. That seems like a weird coincidence but whatever.

But they go way farther than that.

Even the claim that the average in some parts of South America is 85. Preposterous.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah, I can accept racial differences in IQ but 65 sounds bonkers.  That's too dumb to chew food.

[Barrister]

But yes - I strongly don't believe the median IQ in sub-saharan Africa is under 65.  That's mentally impaired level.

Well that is the main thing I am taking objection to. They try to spin this thing that there are some mental differences between different "races" which are (or were) genetically isolated groups. Maybe there are some slight differences there that aren't just cultural or whatever. It does seem suspect that white people are almost average at everything. That seems like a weird coincidence but whatever.

But they go way farther than that.

Even the claim that the average in some parts of South America is 85. Preposterous.

So I would entirely ignore Raz's map - searching the web I found it on pinterest with no sources.

But the "race realists" or "scientific racism" do keep coming back to what are fairly small differences in IQ as if it is really meaningful.

[Valmy]

Even if the map is poorly sourced those are the exact claims I have seen on this topic by these race realist types for years. That the average IQ in sub-saharan Africa is about 70 and the only reason African Americans score higher is because of all the race mixing with white people.

Also I recognize the map. It gets brought out all the time in these discussions.

But the "race realists" or "scientific racism" do keep coming back to what are fairly small differences in IQ as if it is really meaningful.

Right. Because the actual differences are rather small. So they have to grossly exaggerate them in their propaganda.

[grumbler]

Do they even score lower or this is one of those self-affirming BS that somebody reads or hears about and since it confirms their worldview take it on face value and then spread it?

Yes.
Honestly, it looks like it is tied to wealth.  China is an outlier.

That's from 2002.  The 2006 update smooths out a lot of the exceptions:

Note, though, that both of these maps are highly controversial given that they are intended to show that wealth is a product of IQ, not that IQ test results are skewed by wealth.  I.e., that poor people are poor because they are stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality

[Tamas]

I would classify mensa members as special needs

[garbon]

I would classify mensa members as special needs

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think VPs rarely matter, but Vance was a complete dud of an electoral pick. He is just a copy of Trump's base, does nothing to broaden appeal.

Tim Scott or Nikki Haley were easy lay up wins, Tim Scott I genuinely think would have given Trump a +2 durable polling boost. Haley I get they probably hate each other too much, but there's a few other non-Kristi Noem female prospects who also could have helped him out.

J.D. Vance doesn't broaden the appeal at all beyond the base of voters who were already Trump loyalists.

Vance also isn't clearly that strong on the "Trump loyalist" front, he was a vitriolic Trump critic before he flopped to supporting him. Which is often a sin that Trump may forgive if you bend the knee, but rarely forgets.

Trump is leading in the polls, and he wants to avoid a repeat of what happened with Pence.  In the end Pence refused to go along with stealing the election.  Trump figures Vance will be more loyal.  Most of those other names you mentioned have some independent power base apart from Trump.  Vance really doesn't - he's a junior senator who was only elected by help from Trump.

And the fact Vance used to be a critic I think appeals to him - like I said it's a power move to get someone to change their principles so thoroughly.

That's nonsensical. Trump is term limited and will be in his 80s at the end of his next term, he doesn't give a single fuck about the election that follows--Trump is not concerned at all with who is President when he no longer can be.

Vance does nothing to increase Trump's appeal or gain him votes in places he needs them.

VP candidates largely don't matter, but the limited scope of how they do matter, Vance is a bad pick. The other candidates were nothing like Mike Pence, in any case. Any of the conceivable candidates were committed election deniers themselves.