IQ and Medicine

[mwsapphire]

He says its an inspirational quote for other people, even if he doesn't believe in luck.
If you take luck out of the quote, it still makes sense.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mistafab]

Success in medical school is determined by a two-by-two square.

One side is Smart vs Not smart; the other is hard working, or not hard working.

You can succeed if you fall within three of those squares.

 

[aalamruad]

He says its an inspirational quote for other people, even if he doesn't believe in luck.
If you take luck out of the quote, it still makes sense.

It's ridiculous to not believe in luck. Just objectively incorrect, actually.

 

[anisole]

Can someone give me a link to a reputable IQ test? I've never taken one...

Here is one of the best IQ tests you can find online. Note, it only tests nonverbal intelligence!

Link:
JCTI_rev2013

Just some notes before anyone ventures to take the test:
1) set aside 2 hours at least and take your time! There is no time limit
2) there are 52 questions
3) This is an adaptive test, so it gets harder/easier based on your performace
4) You don't have to put your email address or name. The required fields (education, age, etc.) are for data collection (the creator of the test is a psychometrician who researches intelligence).
5) If you choose to do it again, please wait 3+ weeks. Like all IQ tests, this one is prone to the practice effect and thus artificial increases may be seen if you take it twice in a row. But because this test is adaptive, you will most likely *not* see the same 52 questions two times in a row--couple this with waiting 3+ weeks and your second score can probably be just as accurate.

This test has been verified to accurately assess nonverbal IQ by drawing correlations to other tests (more on statistics: http://www.cogn-iq.org/pdf/jcti/brochure.pdf)... Note that it does not perfectly correlate with (but it's still relatively strong) WAIS or other all-encompassing IQ tests, it's only a very good predictor of nonverbal intelligence-->though some may argue that nonverbal is more accurate because it doesn't require any knowledge.

Finally, note how its correlations with the SAT and ACT is only moderate at best... this indicates that scholastic achievement is less correlated with (nonverbal) IQ than one may expect, but the correlation is still there. This can perhaps be extrapolated to mean that the MCAT does not correlate to IQ in a 1:1 manner, if the ACT/SAT are judged to be similar to the MCAT in form.

 

[abbie_toonie]

Here is one of the best IQ tests you can find online. Note, it only tests nonverbal intelligence!

Link:
JCTI_rev2013

Just some notes before anyone ventures to take the test:
1) set aside 2 hours at least and take your time! There is no time limit
2) there are 52 questions
3) This is an adaptive test, so it gets harder/easier based on your performace
4) You don't have to put your email address or name. The required fields (education, age, etc.) are for data collection (the creator of the test is a psychometrician who researches intelligence).
5) If you choose to do it again, please wait 3+ weeks. Like all IQ tests, this one is prone to the practice effect and thus artificial increases may be seen if you take it twice in a row. But because this test is adaptive, you will most likely *not* see the same 52 questions two times in a row--couple this with waiting 3+ weeks and your second score can probably be just as accurate.

This test has been verified to accurately assess nonverbal IQ by drawing correlations to other tests (more on statistics: http://www.cogn-iq.org/pdf/jcti/brochure.pdf)... Note that it does not perfectly correlate with (but it's still relatively strong) WAIS or other all-encompassing IQ tests, it's only a very good predictor of nonverbal intelligence-->though some may argue that nonverbal is more accurate because it doesn't require any knowledge.

Finally, note how its correlations with the SAT and ACT is only moderate at best... this indicates that scholastic achievement is less correlated with (nonverbal) IQ than one may expect, but the correlation is still there. This can perhaps be extrapolated to mean that the MCAT does not correlate to IQ in a 1:1 manner, if the ACT/SAT are judged to be similar to the MCAT in form.

MCAT practice vs. taking this test..... hmmm... I'll pass.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Oh I definitely believe in luck. I mean think about just the luck involved in being born here versus there, parents, community, if your secondary education teachers or mentors during school gave you motivation, any opportunities that come your way... I don't know if you'd call those things luck or fate but definitely they fall under "things you can't control."

Oh, for sure. I just don't believe in random good or bad luck. I believe it all comes from God, but I don't like to thrust religion into a thread.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

 

[Jared.mock]

Oh, for sure. I just don't believe in random good or bad luck. I believe it all comes from God, but I don't like to thrust religion into a thread.

Personally, I don't believe in God. But I believe in the possibility of predestination, in that my actions and any event are not determined at all by me. The cumulative events that occurred in the universe prior to me typing this paragraph is what led to this paragraph. Ostensibly occurred due to my own volition, but in reality it was going to happen because all prior events determined its fate... Events-->outcomes... (Although this is a free will vs determinism argument, I think it's apt in this context).


But then I look at quantum mechanics and don't know what to believe anymore.

 

[mwsapphire]

Oh, for sure. I just don't believe in random good or bad luck. I believe it all comes from God, but I don't like to thrust religion into a thread.

I love the thought of another religious user on here.
<3

 

[JJRousseau]

I got an IQ of 116 in the 4th grade. According to this website, I would make a great taxi driver, correctional officer, or truck driver. It's time for me to forget about medicine.

An IQ Score of 116 Means You Have High Average Intelligence

That's ridiculous IMHO. That IQ puts you at one standard deviation above the mean. I suspect that it is about average for successful college graduates, but that's guesswork. What is ludicrous is the idea that peers in medical school abound with below average IQ. It's a silly metric with heavy dependency on social structure and norms, but if someone is going to take it seriously they should at least understand that approximately 70% of the population has an IQ below that.

 

[JJRousseau]

This website aligned with my thoughts: http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.html . Again, this IQ metric has clearly been shown to be biased by social and culture norms, but with an IQ of 116 you are one point above the average college graduate. This framing of the IQ is probably relatively accurate, because social success in terms of education is not only determined by intelligence but intellectually conforming to socially normative patterns of thinking - like IQ.

EDIT: I should say I haven't fact checked the legitimacy of the website out of laziness and prioritizing other endeavors. It's agreement with my gut may be a confirmation bias.

EDIT2: I am loathe to rank admirability or importance of society by intelligence, and IQ probably is not even an accurate measure of intelligence. However, IQ score is probably reasonably accurate for prediction of success in society as it is subject to the same biases as social success (education or otherwise) independent of some raw conception of intelligence. As such, I think many who posted on this thread massively underestimate the implication of an average IQ of 100 in terms of social limitation (e.g. the average of your peers, other college students, is a whole standard deviation from the mean of the population).

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Personally, I don't believe in God. But I believe in the possibility of predestination, in that my actions and any event are not determined at all by me. The cumulative events that occurred in the universe prior to me typing this paragraph is what led to this paragraph. Ostensibly occurred due to my own volition, but in reality it was going to happen because all prior events determined its fate... Events-->outcomes... (Although this is a free will vs determinism argument, I think it's apt in this context).


But then I look at quantum mechanics and don't know what to believe anymore.

I mean we believe essentially the same things, we just call it different things and attribute it to different sources.

 

[JJRousseau]

I mean we believe essentially the same things, we just call it different things and attribute it to different sources.

I find this and the quote to which you responded to be extremely unsatisfying. I think the examined life dies without interaction between agency and randomness (whether the killer of agency is a specific conception of God or the atheist psycho-biological determinants of our collective actions each pre-determined by biology and experience) and thus the struggle with God (literally English for the Hebrew name Israel) dies or at least become irrelevant nonsense. Thus, an all too common brand of Christianity and atheism conspire to kill religion without realizing their cooperation in the dark deed. However, for me, religion is a struggle with meaning or God, if you will, so maybe that's unfair to impose the definition on other folks. I prefer to embrace the humanity that consciousness forces on me rather than throw it away due to sentiment of faith or enslavement to reason.

But boy is that a controversial digression from the scope of this thread.

Different strokes for different folks. I too consider myself a deeply religious person, but strongly disagree with either of those sentiments.

 

[sullen-burger]

I find this and the quote to which you responded to be extremely unsatisfying. I think the examined life dies without interaction between agency and randomness (whether the killer of agency is a specific conception of God or the atheist psycho-biological determinants of our collective actions each pre-determined by biology and experience) and thus the struggle with God (literally English for the Hebrew name Israel) dies or at least become irrelevant nonsense Thus, an all too common brand of Christianity and atheism conspire to kill religion without realizing their cooperation in the dark deed. However, for me, religion is a struggle with meaning or God, if you will, so maybe that's unfair to impose the definition on other folks. I prefer to embrace the humanity that consciousness forces on me rather than throw it away due to sentiment of faith or enslavement to reason.

But boy is that a controversial digression from the scope of this thread.

Different strokes for different folks. I too consider myself a deeply religious person, but strongly disagree with either of those sentiments.

EDIT for readability: P.S. Isn't it great that one whose name (Jacob) means seizes by the heel or as put so eloquently by Robin Williams quoting a poet in a favorite movie of mine, sucks the marrow out of life, is the individual in the Hebrew bible that is renamed as struggling with God and the literary figure that sits at the root of all Abrahamic theology?

Jesus Christ that was a lot.

 

[JJRousseau]

Jesus Christ that was a lot.

Sorry. I've spent some time thinking about it. I also realized after the fact that my connecting overcoming adversity or coming from behind (grabbing by the heel) and sucking the marrow out of the life was a bit of a stretch - hence the edit of the edit.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I find this and the quote to which you responded to be extremely unsatisfying. I think the examined life dies without interaction between agency and randomness (whether the killer of agency is a specific conception of God or the atheist psycho-biological determinants of our collective actions each pre-determined by biology and experience) and thus the struggle with God (literally English for the Hebrew name Israel) dies or at least become irrelevant nonsense. Thus, an all too common brand of Christianity and atheism conspire to kill religion without realizing their cooperation in the dark deed. However, for me, religion is a struggle with meaning or God, if you will, so maybe that's unfair to impose the definition on other folks. I prefer to embrace the humanity that consciousness forces on me rather than throw it away due to sentiment of faith or enslavement to reason.

But boy is that a controversial digression from the scope of this thread.

Different strokes for different folks. I too consider myself a deeply religious person, but strongly disagree with either of those sentiments.

Okay. I literally have no idea what to say to that.

 

[altblue]

Okay. I literally have no idea what to say to that.

He's sounding like a CARS passage lol

 

[Jared.mock]

I find this and the quote to which you responded to be extremely unsatisfying. I think the examined life dies without interaction between agency and randomness (whether the killer of agency is a specific conception of God or the atheist psycho-biological determinants of our collective actions each pre-determined by biology and experience) and thus the struggle with God (literally English for the Hebrew name Israel) dies or at least become irrelevant nonsense. Thus, an all too common brand of Christianity and atheism conspire to kill religion without realizing their cooperation in the dark deed. However, for me, religion is a struggle with meaning or God, if you will, so maybe that's unfair to impose the definition on other folks. I prefer to embrace the humanity that consciousness forces on me rather than throw it away due to sentiment of faith or enslavement to reason.

But boy is that a controversial digression from the scope of this thread.

Different strokes for different folks. I too consider myself a deeply religious person, but strongly disagree with either of those sentiments.

Unsatisfying as my answer may be, your reply assumed too much about my beliefs. I was commenting on the idea of good luck/bad luck.

And for me and many others, existentialism is the struggle with meaning.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

It's ridiculous to not believe in luck. Just objectively incorrect, actually.

You think not believing in luck is objectively incorrect? Luck is not the same as simple probability. Luck has good and bad aspects associated with it. I believe that things that happen beyond our control happen for a reason, and even if they seem ****ty at the time, they are ultimately good (easier to say when you're not in it, but I still believe that ultimately). I didn't say I don't believe in probability. I said I don't believe in luck, ie, I don't believe that one can be lucky or unlucky.

But depending on your definition of luck and the context, we could be talking about extremely similar things with different names. Or not.

 

[kb1900]

You think not believing in luck is objectively incorrect? Luck is not the same as simple probability. Luck has good and bad aspects associated with it. I believe that things that happen beyond our control happen for a reason, and even if they seem ****ty at the time, they are ultimately good (easier to say when you're not in it, but I still believe that ultimately). I didn't say I don't believe in probability. I said I don't believe in luck, ie, I don't believe that one can be lucky or unlucky.

But depending on your definition of luck and the context, we could be talking about extremely similar things with different names. Or not.

Luck IS simple probability. Not going to enter the religious aspect of the discussion.
But when we say something was lucky (bador good), all we're saying is that something that had a lowlikelihood of happening, ie a low probability, did end up happening.

He was lucky to win the lottery
She was lucky to survive that car crash
That family was unlucky to have their house burn down
I was lucky there was still food left in the cafeteria on fried chicken day

All of these statements are just describing a probabilistic event and the outcome.

 

[mwsapphire]

You think not believing in luck is objectively incorrect? Luck is not the same as simple probability. Luck has good and bad aspects associated with it. I believe that things that happen beyond our control happen for a reason, and even if they seem ****ty at the time, they are ultimately good (easier to say when you're not in it, but I still believe that ultimately). I didn't say I don't believe in probability. I said I don't believe in luck, ie, I don't believe that one can be lucky or unlucky.

But depending on your definition of luck and the context, we could be talking about extremely similar things with different names. Or not.

What religion are you?
I'm muslim.
( Obviously)

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Luck IS simple probability. Not going to enter the religious aspect of the discussion.
But when we say something was lucky (bador good), all we're saying is that something that had a lowlikelihood of happening, ie a low probability, did end up happening.

He was lucky to win the lottery
She was lucky to survive that car crash
That family was unlucky to have their house burn down
I was lucky there was still food left in the cafeteria on fried chicken day

All of these statements are just describing a probabilistic event and the outcome.

They actually aren't the same. We tend to use them interchangeably, but that doesn't mean they are. Luck is distinct from probability or chance because it can be good or bad. Chance comes from the Latin word for falling, meaning things happen as they fall--by random chance. Luck was introduced in the context of gambling as a way to describe personal fortune, either good or bad.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

What religion are you?
I'm muslim.
( Obviously)

Christian.

 

[kb1900]

They actually aren't the same. We tend to use them interchangeably, but that doesn't mean they are. Luck is distinct from probability or chance because it can be good or bad. Chance comes from the Latin word for falling, meaning things happen as they fall--by random chance. Luck was introduced in the context of gambling as a way to describe personal fortune, either good or bad.

Then in that case I don't believe in luck either!

But still it's an outdated notion and those are dated defections (imo). We all know the probabilities when we step into a casino. When something with a low likelihood of occurring does, we ascribe it to luck. If you're saying that this is different from saying "he only had a .03% chanceoif that happening" then yeah, I don't believe in luck.

 

[Saifa]

Luck is fine justification for things that already happened beyond one's control, but it's no basis for predicting the future.

 

[aalamruad]

They actually aren't the same. We tend to use them interchangeably, but that doesn't mean they are. Luck is distinct from probability or chance because it can be good or bad. Chance comes from the Latin word for falling, meaning things happen as they fall--by random chance. Luck was introduced in the context of gambling as a way to describe personal fortune, either good or bad.

Some things are good, some things are bad. Some things have a low probability of happening, some things have a high probability of happening. When something good happens even though it had a low probability of happening, it's lucky. When something bad happens even though it had a low probability of happening, it's unlucky. I don't understand where the confusion comes from. If random chance leads to success, then it's lucky. If random chance leads to failure, then it's unlucky. That's just the definition of luck.

 

[LilOrphanFourval]

I find this and the quote to which you responded to be extremely unsatisfying. I think the examined life dies without interaction between agency and randomness (whether the killer of agency is a specific conception of God or the atheist psycho-biological determinants of our collective actions each pre-determined by biology and experience) and thus the struggle with God (literally English for the Hebrew name Israel) dies or at least become irrelevant nonsense. Thus, an all too common brand of Christianity and atheism conspire to kill religion without realizing their cooperation in the dark deed. However, for me, religion is a struggle with meaning or God, if you will, so maybe that's unfair to impose the definition on other folks. I prefer to embrace the humanity that consciousness forces on me rather than throw it away due to sentiment of faith or enslavement to reason.

But boy is that a controversial digression from the scope of this thread.

Different strokes for different folks. I too consider myself a deeply religious person, but strongly disagree with either of those sentiments.

As someone else who doesn't believe that we have much in the way of agency, what is it that makes you believe that we have any sort of ability to be independent from our biology, circumstance, etc.? Personally, I feel like I have some sort of free will, but I have never heard a good argument for it.

 

[kb1900]

As someone else who doesn't believe that we have much in the way of agency, what is it that makes you believe that we have any sort of ability to be independent from our biology, circumstance, etc.? Personally, I feel like I have some sort of free will, but I have never heard a good argument for it.

there are some really good primary sources on the topic of predetermination/predestination if you are interested
St. Augustine, Confessions, Book II
Erasmus, The Freedom of the Will
Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will

 

[freak7]

I played craps once

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Then in that case I don't believe in luck either!

But still it's an outdated notion and those are dated defections (imo). We all know the probabilities when we step into a casino. When something with a low likelihood of occurring does, we ascribe it to luck. If you're saying that this is different from saying "he only had a .03% chanceoif that happening" then yeah, I don't believe in luck.

Tell my brother-in-law, who used to play poker professionally, that it's an outdated definition. Like I said, just because we use them interchangeably doesn't mean they are equivalent.

And I don't say someone got lucky (or unlucky) if something with a low probability happens to them.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Some things are good, some things are bad. Some things have a low probability of happening, some things have a high probability of happening. When something good happens even though it had a low probability of happening, it's lucky. When something bad happens even though it had a low probability of happening, it's unlucky. I don't understand where the confusion comes from. If random chance leads to success, then it's lucky. If random chance leads to failure, then it's unlucky. That's just the definition of luck.

You seem to be experiencing the confusion. Luck is probability plus a subjective "good" or "bad" tacked onto it. As in someone can be a lucky person or an unlucky person. Random chance is not like that. It just is, and your chances of having multiple low probability events happen to you isn't affected by you being "lucky." If it happens to be a bad thing that happens to you, then it just happens to be a bad thing (but again, since I don't believe in luck and believe that things like that happen because of God, ultimately even the bad stuff is for a reason).

 

[sullen-burger]

Lol, claims they don't want to bring religion into the discussion.



Brings in religion.

 

[aalamruad]

You seem to be experiencing the confusion.

lol no

Luck is probability plus a subjective "good" or "bad" tacked onto it. As in someone can be a lucky person or an unlucky person. Random chance is not like that. It just is, and your chances of having multiple low probability events happen to you isn't affected by you being "lucky."

Of course. Being a lucky person isn't a cause of subsequent luck, it's the result of previous luck. Someone who has experienced good outcomes at a rate higher than random chance would predict is lucky, by definition.

If it happens to be a bad thing that happens to you, then it just happens to be a bad thing (but again, since I don't believe in luck and believe that things like that happen because of God, ultimately even the bad stuff is for a reason).

Alright let's either talk about religion or not talk about it, I'm happy to discuss it but don't keep suggesting that you don't want to insert your religious beliefs into the discussion and then shoehorn God into a bunch of your posts.

When a 2-year-old gets malaria and dies, she didn't get unlucky? Nor did the million other kids who got malaria last year? It wasn't unlucky that they happened to be born in an area where malaria is common and where there's very little healthcare access? It makes a whole lot more sense to say that those kiddos got unlucky than to claim that God chose for them to suffer and die as babies. To claim that some people aren't unlucky is an insult to people who have lives much more difficult and unfortunate than yours. Keep that in mind. That said, I'll try to be sensitive to your religious beliefs if you actually elaborate on them.

Also, since this is getting pretty off-topic, I'm happy to take this discussion to PMs.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Lol, claims they don't want to bring religion into the discussion.



Brings in religion.

I made a post and left it at that. I keep getting quoted and told I'm wrong about my subjective opinion that is based on actual definitions and not slang or common use, so I hope that isn't directed at me.

Edit: I'm also not arguing over the existence of God, I'm just putting my view in context.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

lol no

lol yes

Of course. Being a lucky person isn't a cause of subsequent luck, it's the result of previous luck. Someone who has experienced good outcomes at a rate higher than random chance would predict is lucky, by definition.

Right. But I don't believe a person is just inherently lucky or unlucky. Not sure what's so hard to grasp about that.

Alright let's either talk about religion or not talk about it, I'm happy to discuss it but don't keep suggesting that you don't want to insert your religious beliefs into the discussion and then shoehorn God into a bunch of your posts.

Then stop responding to me. I simply defined luck and then explained why I don't believe in it. My belief in God is context for that belief. I have no desire to argue about religion.

When a 2-year-old gets malaria and dies, she didn't get unlucky? Nor did the million other kids who got malaria last year? It wasn't unlucky that they happened to be born in an area where malaria is common and where there's very little healthcare access? It makes a whole lot more sense to say that those kiddos got unlucky than to claim that God chose for them to suffer and die as babies. To claim that some people aren't unlucky is an insult to people who have lives much more difficult and unfortunate than yours. Keep that in mind. That said, I'll try to be sensitive to your religious beliefs if you actually elaborate on them.

Also, since this is getting pretty off-topic, I'm happy to take this discussion to PMs.

No need. I don't really care to discuss it anymore. I only wanted to make a post about something I heard and thought was interesting. My mistake for mentioning not believing in luck. Really didn't think it was going to upset so many people.

 

[aalamruad]

edit: nvm doesn't matter

 

[Lawpy]

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

ITT people mistake opinion for fact. Not worth your energy getting into it.

 

[sullen-burger]

Isn't it nice that we can have a civil discussion in an Internet forum and have our views respected even if we don't agree, rather than be silly? I think so!

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Yeaaaa, noooo....someone else.

Way to completely ignore the context and not quote the posts those replies were to, including the one that directly asked me what my religion was. You should know better.

Thanks for the reason to put you on ignore.

 

[sullen-burger]

Thanks for the reason to put you on ignore.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I changed my post to something much much nicer. You give some of the best posts I see around here. I'd hate for you not to know that. Friends again?

 

[freak7]

Can we stop already? You guys directly asked him to explain and now you're upset because his answer is based on his religion. It was pretty obvious (to me at least) why he wasn't so forthcoming initially about his beliefs in luck.

 

[Lawpy]

I'm just leaving this here for no reason honestly.

 

[mw18]

Success in medical school is determined by a two-by-two square.

One side is Smart vs Not smart; the other is hard working, or not hard working.

You can succeed if you fall within three of those squares.

A good med student/Step 1 prepper can use a 2 x 2 table to answer anything.

 

[wholeheartedly]

back on topic please

 

[ZedsDed]

@JJRousseau It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how genes function. In this context, genes are probabilistic rather than deterministic.

Re the OP:
-IQ tests measure differences between individuals that are largely genetic.
-IQ itself is a powerful predictor of future success.
-Medicine is a fairly demanding profession.

It isn't hard to connect the dots

As others have already pointed out, intelligence is just one avenue for success.

Most of you are a little "out there" on this issue relative to contemporary research.

 

[LilOrphanFourval]

@JJRousseau It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how genes function. In this context, genes are probabilistic rather than deterministic.

Re the OP:
-IQ tests measure differences between individuals that are largely genetic.
-IQ itself is a powerful predictor of future success.
-Medicine is a fairly demanding profession.

It isn't hard to connect the dots

As others have already pointed out, intelligence is just one avenue for success.

Most of you are a little "out there" on this issue relative to contemporary research.

Is IQ a powerful predictor when you control for things like socio-economic status, education, etc.? And genetically, one big difference is sex. Women tend to do worse on timed IQ tests because men are inherently faster when dealing with problems involving spacial reasoning, but if you control for time women are just as capable. Also, although there is a correlation between intelligence and IQ, couldn't it be that the access to more education would lead to an increase in IQ? The types of reasoning that IQ tests can certainly be affected by the quality of education you receive in your formative years.

 

[LilOrphanFourval]

there are some really good primary sources on the topic of predetermination/predestination if you are interested
St. Augustine, Confessions, Book II
Erasmus, The Freedom of the Will
Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will

I was actually a philosophy major, and I've never read an argument for free will that didn't boil down to G-d did it. I'll have to read the MLK piece though, thanks for the suggestion!

 

[JJRousseau]

@JJRousseau It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how genes function. In this context, genes are probabilistic rather than deterministic.

If I said anything that suggested I think genes are deterministic, then I did not articulate myself well. I most certainly do not think genes are deterministic.

 

[WisNeuro]

Is IQ a powerful predictor when you control for things like socio-economic status, education, etc.? And genetically, one big difference is sex. Women tend to do worse on timed IQ tests because men are inherently faster when dealing with problems involving spacial reasoning, but if you control for time women are just as capable. Also, although there is a correlation between intelligence and IQ, couldn't it be that the access to more education would lead to an increase in IQ? The types of reasoning that IQ tests can certainly be affected by the quality of education you receive in your formative years.

Yes