Biased data and faulty interpretation. The sample are high IQ people who need adderall to be productive for longer or phenibut to be less socially awkward. Nootropics should boost IQ. Both LSD and adderall enhance some functions and weaken others. Not general IQ boosts.
-
-
Replying to @MimeticValue @KirkegaardEmil and
Nothing "boosts IQ". It is heritable but stable, other than declining with age or other things.
@jrwill9, get over here now please, as this is your field. I am just a retail banker.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EllieAsksWhy @MimeticValue and
I don’t know anything about nootropics, but there are drugs that can temporarily improve cognitive function, the most notable being nicotine. I don’t know of any evidence for permanent IQ gains from drugs.
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @jrwill9 @EllieAsksWhy and
Right, this is why I'm suspicious of IQ as a measurement. There are intelligence differences between people, but I is not a good way to measure it. If you're severely sleep derived, you'd probably score 30+ points lower than your peak.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @MimeticValue @jrwill9 and
Let's say for work, I can maintain peak concentration and IQ of 150 for 4 hours, then I burn out and my IQ slowly declines until it's 100 if I don't take a nap. Then with a few drinks, my IQ becomes 80. Nobody talks about this.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MimeticValue @jrwill9 and
Test taking motivation and contextual factors has been a topic of study for decades. Your problem is that you don't read the serious literature on the topic. There is a solution for that: stop posting on Twitter and take a few months off to read a few textbooks.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @jrwill9 and
I study what predicts real world success, and IQ is not it. All the communist professors score high on IQ tests, but can't run a business to save their lives. Only resentful losers ever brag about their IQ scores; same type of people who blame their failures on capitalism.
2 replies 6 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @MimeticValue @KirkegaardEmil and
I also think IQ is a bad measurement b/c it's comparative to a poorly defined baseline rather than a raw score of computational capabilities. Also, the tails aren't symmetrical. A proper intelligence metric should be able to be determined through a brain scan, not silly questions
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @MimeticValue @KirkegaardEmil and
@suvyboy also pointed out that the problem with the IQ metric is that it assumes that the distribution of IQ is a normal distribution. That's a bad assumption. Clearly we see people who get tested 200, but not 0, despite being equally probable in a normal distribution.1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @MimeticValue @KirkegaardEmil and
Yes. We have way too many ppl on 6 SD and 7 SD in the world for the distributional assumptions behind IQ to be valid. The distribution for IQ is fat-tailed and skewed (most examples of fat-tails IRL have a skew).
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
Meta-analysis of 10 large samples says no.http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1932202x13507969 …
-
-
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @MimeticValue and
What you did is literally the definition of confirmation bias.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @suvyboy @KirkegaardEmil and
The problem is the basic assumptions of the model itself. All this study does is fitting the data to the model. NaQ seems more promising than IQ, since it's actually based in objective measurements of the brain: http://opentheory.net/2018/08/a-future-for-neuroscience/ …
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.