https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=1m1s The use of race as a proxy for IQ, sterilizing the low IQ is better than being racist, everyone gets a fair chance to propagate
https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=2m3s Luke wants to empower police to give the reverse five digit test, then deport if people fail
https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=7m8s Ecce Lux says the low IQ substitute feeling for thinking, Luke denies the low IQ can be highly empathic when compared to smart people, empathy is a product of abstract thinking
https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=7m42s Kevin prefers the 95 IQ crowd living straight, the old beat cop had empathy
https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=8m33s Luke says stupid cops shooting people are overwhelmingly dim and low IQ affirmative action hires
https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=12m44s We can test empirically the type of communities that high IQ types produce (Beverly Hills, Manhattan, prime San Francisco and Silicon Valley and the type of places low IQs produce)
https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=16m1s Kevin: High IQ is not a moral virtue
https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=19m10s Kevin: The secret to getting ahead in Hollywood is theft. Beverly Hills is filled with unethical types from entertainment industry.
https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=22m6s Kevin: Financial services industry is composed of high IQ psychopaths
https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=22m22s Luke: What flourishing country does not have a sophisticated system for lending money? Aka final services industry. Where would you like to live? Somalia? North Korea?
https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=29m50s Kevin: Do you consider the Greeks and Romans to be inferior civilization? Why is modern capitalism the best economic system?
https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=36m1s Kevin: I am not going to argue against a tautology
https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=46m20s Justin Trudeau’s groping scandal
https://youtu.be/bWzpqYuDAjA?t=59m32s Luke says looking out for IOIs (Indicators of Interest) from a woman will prevent accusations of groping
* “The IQ threshold hypothesis – the idea that, after IQ 120, additional IQ points don’t translate into higher achievement – is false. Even among the top 1% (roughly IQ 137+), higher IQ predicts greater achievement.”
* If you watch the World Cup or the Super Bowl, you’ll see the differences between winning and losing is often inches. Real life is often like that…So superior processing power tends to win over inferior processing. Science!
* This section examines the range of over 4 standard deviations of ability that
exists beyond the cut score for the top 1%. It represents approximately the top one
third of the ability range (i.e., from around 137 to around 200 in IQ units). For
years, individual differences within the top 1% of ability have been demonstrated
to matter for a host of educational accomplishments (Benbow, 1992; Hollingworth
& Cobb, 1928). To what extent, however, do individual differences within this
range matter for concrete “real-world” accomplishments? Is there a threshold
point at which differences in ability cease to matter and other attributes become
more critical? In popular writing, this idea is common. For example, in Outliers:
The Story of Success, Malcolm Gladwell (2008, p. 79) wrote, “The relationship
between success and IQ works only up to a point. Once someone has an IQ of
somewhere around 120, having additional IQ points doesn’t seem to translate into
any measurable real-world advantage.”
* “psychometricians since have reached consensus that intellectual abilities are organized hierarchically (Carroll, 1993; Corno et al., 2002; Detterman, 2014; Hunt, 2011; Jensen, 1998a, 1998b; Mackintosh, 2011; Messick, 1992; Snow, Corno, & Jackson, 1996; Snow & Lohman, 1989; Warne, 2015). Different labels have been attached to the central dimension of this intellectual hierarchy’s apex. That is, g, fluid reasoning ability, general intelligence.”
* Adjusting the depth and pace of the curriculum to the rate at which each student
learned would “keep each student busy at his highest level of achievement in
order that he may be successful, happy, and good” (italics in original, Seashore,
1922, p. 644). For the gifted, Seashore recommended that instead of whipping
them into line, we “whip them out of line.” Seashore (1930, 1942) leveraged this
idea when he marshaled his campaign for establishing honors colleges throughout
major U.S. universities. Although his name does not always surface in historical
treatments of the gifted movement, Seashore’s impact was profound (Miles,
1956). He traveled to 46 of the contiguous states within the United States meeting
with university officials to discuss the importance of honors colleges and more
challenging curricula and opportunities for the most talented university students…
* For example, about 10% of 12th-grade students younger than 18
years of age had more scientific knowledge than the average college senior.
Within all grade levels, younger students were more knowledgeable than the
older students. And, if graduation from college were based on demonstrated knowledge rather than time in the educational system, a full 15% of the entering
freshmen class would be deemed ready to graduate.
* Pressey (1955) hypothesized that by securing educational
credentials at an earlier age than was typical, intellectually precocious youth have
an added advantage in their personal, professional, and creative potential because,
in addition to being at the height of their intellectual prowess then, other psychosomatic
systems of energy, interest, and endurance are at their height as well.
Accomplishment builds on accomplishment to augment personal strength and
psychosomatic vigor, engendering a furtherance of remarkable achievement. Just
as Piaget drew on much of Binet’s early work to construct his formulation of child
development (Siegler, 1992), conceptual threads of furtherance extend to such
subsequent performance-based frameworks as developing “effectance motivation”
(White, 1959), “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1993), and “states of excellence”
(Lubinski & Benbow, 2000).
According to Pressey (1949),
There should be a broad program aiming expressly at adjustment to individual
differences in capacities and rates of development, and recognizing the need also for
each individual to move into the accomplishment and full experience of adult life
without undue delay. Education may then be far better fitted to the needs of each young
person, and years may be added to achievement and the satisfaction of adult selfrealization.
It is indeed noble when advances in medicine add years to life. But to add a
year or so at the end of life might be far less of a contribution to both individual total
happiness and total social usefulness than years added to adult living in the very prime
of life. (p. 148)
* In arguably the longest longitudinal study of acceleration in the literature,
Cronbach (1996) compared Terman’s participants who were accelerated versus
those who were not:
In many aspects of their adult lives those who had accelerated as a group did not differ
from the roughly equated controls. Every nontrivial difference that did appear on a
value-laden variable showed those who had been accelerated at an advantage. . . .
Frankly, I had not expected to find effects cropping up in responses forty to fifty years
after high school graduation. I expected the vicissitudes of life gradually to wash out the
initial difference favoring those who had been accelerated. Instead, it appears that their
personal qualities or the encouragement and tangible boost given by acceleration, or
both, produced a lasting increment of momentum. (p. 190)
* “Nevertheless, age 12 ability differences within the top 1% still impart an advantage, even when controlling for terminal educational degree and university prestige”
* Moving along the gradient of individual differences within the top 1% of
general intellectual ability, assessed at age 12, ultimately results in a family of
achievement functions that documents that more ability matters. Although the
base rate for patents in the United States is 1%, the bottom quartile within the
top 1% achieves around five times this rate.
* Overall, there does not seem to be an ability threshold within the top 1%
beyond which more ability does not matter. Other personal attributes such as
energy and commitment certainly matter (Ericsson et al., 2006; Eysenck,
1995; Jensen, 1996; Simonton, 1994, 2014), and opportunity clearly always
matters. Nevertheless, age 12 ability differences within the top 1% still impart
an advantage, even when controlling for terminal educational degree and university
* Differences in ability level and pattern are detectable in early adolescence.
Routinely, they go unnoticed because the vast majority of these participants earn
close to top possible scores on conventional college entrance examinations well
before they graduate from high school (a ceiling problem). At that point, for this
population, such assessments are no longer capable of distinguishing the able
from the exceptionally able. They are insensitive to their individuality and developmentally
inappropriate because they assess individual differences below participants’
basal level. Such considerations become particularly cogent when
attention turns to profoundly gifted youth.
* “By drawing knowledge-growth functions over the 3-year period, the IQ-165 group was found to be several months ahead of the IQ-146 group in academic knowledge: 16 months for Word Meaning, 15 months for Paragraph Meaning, and 14.5 months for Nature Study and Science to name but a few.”
* “different patterns of profound intellectual talent uncovered in their youth were predictive of qualitatively different educational, occupational, and creative outcomes.”
* “Just as qualitatively different outcomes are observed as a function of contrasting ability patterns among college students (Figure 2), the typically gifted (Figure 4), and the profoundly gifted (Figure 6), the magnitude of their accomplishments across intellectual gradations of 3, 4, and 5 standard deviations above the normative mean reflect a continuous progression of real-world accomplishment and creativity.”