### Stay away from the math, Jordan

My original meme about the man was spot on. Jordan Peterson reports that his quantitative IQ is between 108 and 123:

On the other hand, I would tend to think that even a quantitative IQ of 108 would be sufficient to grasp what is, after all, a very simple mathematical relationship that dictates an intrinsic tradeoff. But I wouldn't know.

I don't know what my IQ is. I had it tested at one point; it's in excess of a hundred and fifty, but I don't know exactly where it lands now. I should, I should, what, qualify that to some degree, you know, as your intelligence increases, the scatter between the different subtypes of intelligence such as there are, there are, increases, so you might say that there's only one way to be stupid but there's many ways to be intelligent, and so I'm not overwhelmingly intelligent from a quantitative perspective. You know, I think my GRE scores for on the quantitative end of things for about 70, 75th percentile, which isn't too bad given that you know you're competing against other people who are going into graduate school, but there's a big difference between 75th percentile and 99th percentile, and I think that's where it was verbally, something like that, so I can certainly see that I have gaps in my intelligence when when I'm discussing things with people who have real, who are really quantitatively brilliant.You might want to keep this admission in mind when contemplating my original point of contention with the man. My verbal and math SAT scores were very similar, both in the 99th percentile, so while it is certainly not impossible for me to make a mathematical or statistical mistake, the fact that Jordan Peterson has demonstrated himself to be unable to grasp the way in which an excessively high mean on the part of one subset of the population

*absolutely necessitates*an excessively low mean for the majority of the population given the known average for the entire population may be, at least in part, the result of the man being quantitatively challenged.On the other hand, I would tend to think that even a quantitative IQ of 108 would be sufficient to grasp what is, after all, a very simple mathematical relationship that dictates an intrinsic tradeoff. But I wouldn't know.

Labels: Jordanetics, trainwreck

## 167 Comments:

NOTORIOUS BIG SPEAKS TO JBP FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE

https://g.co/kgs/VbpnF4

Vox,

Most Americans believe a 1/4 lb burger is bigger than a 1/3 lb burger.

Now I know JP is Canadian; but my statement was so far from the point anyway that his nationality doesn't affect its accuracy.

It's well known that 78% of psychology papers contain mathematical errors in their treatment of statistics, and 84% of statistics used in arguments are made up in bad faith anyway.

Therefore: All psychologists are ducks, and all ducks are bad at quantitative reasoning.

Therefore: JP is bad at maths.

99th verbal here, but a mere 90 in math! No wonder Calc 1 was not too bad, but Calc 2 was a struggle!!

You know what they say -- if you're brilliant at Math, you become a mathemtician. If you're good at math, you become an engineer. If you're mediocre at math, you become an economist.

And if you are bad at math, it's humanities, baby!!!

Mad.verbal.skills. Is JP (((?)))

@2 and he's also a duck.

Is there something about quantitative intelligence that lends itself to clarity of thought? It's not purely a measurement of computational ability is it? I ask this because JP's skew is huge and his writings are all pretty muddled. He clearly sucks at more than simply doing math problems. Or is is something that results as a result of both being in balance? I remember reading an old post here about Feynman having a similarly large skew but towards the quantitative and he supposedly was quite poor at logic (from what I read).

@6 Good point, if his verbal IQ is the 99 percentile, shouldn't he be more concise in his writing and speaking?

...or is it that he's trying to explain shit he doesn't even understand.

Psych students hate their statistics courses. You cannot bullshit your way through them.

Actually Vox, I think Jordan just... never studied statistics at all. The way I see it, feels like Jordan is an agnostic of sorts slowly going towards Christianity.

@2

Dude... have you even measured the height of those burgers?

@6

But, but... muh Feynman! and Muh Lectures! all 1000 pages of it!

@7

Jordan seems to be trying to create all the time lines of cause and effect to explain stuff. His ideas are so OUT THERE he has to dumb down a lot his speech so other people can understand where he is coming from. The fact he is not reaaaallly high IQ, he might need training before delivering a compelling speech, meaning that his mind is just not fast enough to find the phrases and place in a proper manner to achieve the goal he desires.

The thing is he is a modernist so his assumptions are already horrible. If he were to have a talk with Edward Feser (Phayser is the correct pronunciation) he might let go of a lot of modernist baggage.

--------------------------------------------

BTW, I wonder where my English skills would rank... probably bottom. To imagine my english was more fluid when I was 18 or 19 XD.

@6 Feynman was supposedly around IQ 126 in verbal - no slouch, he taught classes well, you can watch some of his speeches and discussions - but his mathematical was in the unmeasurable ranges of 180+. So he's another example of that scatter.

Feynman's emotional intelligence was actually quite high as well, as witnessed by his working of the process when he was asked to help with the space shuttle disaster investigation. But he also had a bit of the absent-minded professor reputation in terms of driving places and so forth.

I don't think it's even possible to have a 150+ IQ with math at 110. The Verbal would have to be 190+, and you just don't see that kind of disparity between math and verbal...

@3

"99th verbal here, but a mere 90 in math! No wonder Calc 1 was not too bad, but Calc 2 was a struggle!!"

Calc 2 is the hardest of all the Calc classes.

Whereas ALL other calc classes (except differential equations) teach how to solve problems which can be solved with nothing more than simple-minded algorithms, Calc 2 has a LOT or problems in which you must perceive something of the form of the answer before you can even begin to solve the problem.

Solving Derivatives is easy.

Solving Anti-derivatives is sometimes easy, oftentimes not.

Most engineers can do calculus in their sleep.

Most of engineering sticks to problem-solving methods which, if anti-derivatives must be use, stick to the more-easily solved anti-derivatives.

This is not a coincidence.

Wait, when you say "anti-derivative" are you talking about integrals? I've never heard them called that.

When I was a senior, the senior math class had some really bright students. Several had 796+ in math on the SAT. (I was not one of them.) My good friend, Jimmy Goodloe scored 800 on the math section. The teacher for the senior math class was a young mathematician, and very good in the classroom. He handed out a math problem for the class to solve and only two people got the correct answer...myself and Jimmy Goodloe. The teacher let Jimmy put his solution on the blackboard...which took three blackboards of algebra to arrive at the answer. When that was erased, the teacher had me put my solution on the blackboard....three lines and answer.

Unlike the others in class, I studied the HISTORY of mathematics and so I saw the immediate solution was Hero's Theorem, an ancient Greek. I did not have to discover the correct answer or develop it in a sea or algebra. I only had to remember Hero's Theorem.

Jimmy Goodloe was perhaps the most gifted man I ever knew. He went to Davidson College and studied religion. I always thought it was the wrong assignment. He should have been in some STEM field. But I have decided (since then) he did the right thing. He studied what he needed to study.

As for Peterson's supposed amazingly high verbal IQ there are two possible explanations:

1) He actually does have a really high verbal IQ and he's just so full of nonsense that he still can't concisely formulate what he wants to say.

2) He's doubly obsequious and his verbal IQ is above average but nothing amazing.

Ergo: He's BSing. The only real question is "to what degree?"

Eduardo wrote:

. The way I see it, feels like Jordan is an agnostic of sorts slowly going towards Christianity.That's what he wants you to think, but it's another deception.

Eduardo wrote:

His ideas are so OUT THERE he has to dumb down a lot his speech so other people can understand where he is coming from. The fact he is not reaaaallly high IQ, he might need training before delivering a compelling speech, meaning that his mind is just not fast enough to find the phrases and place in a proper manner to achieve the goal he desires.No, his thinking that his thinking is so muddled, and his emotional need for acceptance is so overpowering he has to measure his words with infinite care, lest he let slip his actual thinking and alienate a supporter. If his verbal IQ were 150, it would not require long pauses to carefully word his responses. That's the meaning of a 150 verbal IQ, his mind would be fast enough to find the words and phrases he needs.

And honestly, I have a very high verbal IQ. I can tell you Peterson's writing is not high-level, it's rather deliberately obfuscatory and deceptive.

From the small samples of his writing I've read, I doubt he has much more than a 130 verbal IQ.

His letter to his father sounds like he thinks at the speed he types.

Anti-derivative is something akin to the indefinite integral. There is an abstract difference between the two but I don't know that it has any practical relevance.

@6

"Is there something about quantitative intelligence that lends itself to clarity of thought? It's not purely a measurement of computational ability is it? I ask this because JP's skew is huge and his writings are all pretty muddled. He clearly sucks at more than simply doing math problems. Or is is something that results as a result of both being in balance? I remember reading an old post here about Feynman having a similarly large skew but towards the quantitative and he supposedly was quite poor at logic (from what I read)."

Mathematics doesn't allow the use of non-dialectic tactics. It therefore discourages participation by liars, and those who are prone to repeat lies.

Also, after googling apparently my math profs didn't use anti-derivative but instead used "indefinite integral". Go figure.

Pyrrhus I have friend who has a similar split, he genuinely is a verbal genius but is only above average at math. I also think David Foster Wallace had a similar split, which may explain why Infinite Jest is disorganized and talks about basic calculus like it is string theory.

pyrrhus wrote:

I don't think it's even possible to have a 150+ IQ with math at 110. The Verbal would have to be 190+, and you just don't see that kind of disparity between math and verbal...Wait, are you saying an excessively low number doesn't absolutely necessitate an excessively high number given the known average?

@8

"Psych students hate their statistics courses. You cannot bullshit your way through them."

BINGO.

I've noticed that those who are poor in math also avoid things that don't involve math much at all (such as computer programming).

In fact, I know someone who is started out in computer programming, but turned out to be lousy at computer programming;

nevertheless he managed to be quite successful in the Philosophy department.

Considering that legitimate philosophy is based logic, just as computer programming is, he SHOULD have failed at Philosphy.

This tells you much about the state of the field of Philosophy these days.

@9

"Actually Vox, I think Jordan just... never studied statistics at all. The way I see it, feels like Jordan is an agnostic of sorts slowly going towards Christianity."

You can't get a psych degree without taking (and passing) an introductory statistics course.

Youse guys are mostly ignoring the fact that success in academia, especially psychology, is about spouting pretentious bullshit. 100% of his peers know this, he knows it, and they spend their careers honing their bullshit. How else can they keep grant money coming for junk science that would have no discernable purpose even if it were not fraudulent?

It's not about his verbal IQ. It's about his training, habits, and whole strategic orientation toward communicating.

FYI: InfoWars has an article up now containing the AJ and VD interview

https://www.infowars.com/vox-day-exposes-jordan-peterson-and-the-lefts-plan-to-take-control-of-the-nationalist-movement/

I've seen Jordan Peterson refer to statistics before (when discussing the wage gap, of all things) and he did actually understand what he was talking about there. The statistics of the wage gap are dead simple though.

Pretty sure he's just a liar with an ego and a really screwed up "philosophy". Lots of that going around the last couple hundred years.

Dirk Manly wrote:

@9

"Actually Vox, I think Jordan just... never studied statistics at all. The way I see it, feels like Jordan is an agnostic of sorts slowly going towards Christianity."

You can't get a psych degree without taking (and passing) an introductory statistics course.

I had to take Educational Statistics for my first MA. It consisted of putting numbers into a computer program and relating the results. No knowledge of Statistics required. A monkey could pass that class.

@13

"Wait, when you say "anti-derivative" are you talking about integrals? I've never heard them called that."

Yes, anti-derivative is a synonym for integral.

I used the term anti-derivative to emphasize that it's the opposite process.

Taking a derivative is the equivalent of tracing a 2-D shadow of a 3-D object.

Doing an integral is the equivalent of constructing a 3-D object based upon a tracing of it's 2-D shadow.

pyrrhus wrote:

I don't think it's even possible to have a 150+ IQ with math at 110. The Verbal would have to be 190+, and you just don't see that kind of disparity between math and verbal...Disparity between math and verbal scores are by no means uncommon. Lawyers are notorious examples, where their verbal skill may be very high and their math skills practically non-existent. (My ex-wife was like that too.) Anyone who had taken math courses in graduate school has seen the other extreme disparity....very high math scores and very low verbal skills. This sort of imbalance is not uncommon at the extremes. Where math and verbal scores are close is more common with the mid-range, where neither score is particularly high.

Did Jordan insult Trump or something? Curious where the petty attacks are being triggered.

It is wrong to suggest mean IQ encapsulates all mental abilities/performance of an individual or group. IQ score is a gross simplification of reality and a mere correlation to other abstract measurements.

for those who like 'psyence':

IQ scores often do predict school achievement, albeit imprecisely.

For a variety of reasons, some students with high IQ scores don’t perform well in the classroom, and other students achieve at higher levels than we would predict from their IQ scores alone. Furthermore, IQ tests seem to predict performance on traditional academic tasks better than they predict performance on everyday, real-world tasks or on unusual, multifaceted problems (J. E. Davidson, 2003; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005; Wenke & Frensch, 2003).

The longer the time interval between two measures of intelligence, the greater the fluctuation in IQ, especially when initial measures were taken in the early years (Hayslip, 1994; Sattler, 2001)

https://www.education.com/reference/article/iq-school-achievement/

.

Results for the large-scale ability and achievement subtest studies demonstrated that the CAS (Standard and Basic Batteries, respectively) had the highest correlations with achievement subtests (.65 and.64), followed by the K-ABC (.63). Thus, the two measures of cognitive processing consistently had the highest correlations with achievement despite the fact that they do not contain achievement-like subtests found in all the other ability measures. These and other findings are discussed and contribute to the conclusion that measures of basic psychological processes offer a viable alternative to traditional IQ for the correlation with achievement.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/073428290302100302

.

"Studies have shown that despite the high correlation between IQ and grades, over 95%, the correlation between IQ and success or even achievement is much lower - 20%"

http://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-success.php

Dirk Manly wrote:

You can't get a psych degree without taking (and passing) an introductory statistics course.Intro stats courses are typically rote memorization of the cookbook. Nobody in the stat department likes that, but it's the only way you can get the social science students to pass. So, even the students who pass with flying colors don't know enough to be able to use statistical techniques correctly.

Dirk Manly wrote:

This tells you much about the state of the field of Philosophy these days.Most undergrad Philosophy study at the University level is "History of Philosophy" rather than actual Philosophy

@27

"I had to take Educational Statistics for my first MA. It consisted of putting numbers into a computer program and relating the results. No knowledge of Statistics required. A monkey could pass that class."

That's not how stats was taught when Peterson was an undergrad.

Your average psych student was terrified of having to do anything with a computer that wasn't directly related to loading and running a video game -- written by someone else.

I am as retarded at math as Vox is with spatial concepts. Therefore, I do not have a job that requires much more than y=mx+b. When I need to do math, I call up one of the five Ph.D scientist spectroscopy/chemometrician bruhs that work for us.

@31

"Did Jordan insult Trump or something? Curious where the petty attacks are being triggered."

No.

Far worse, he insults our intelligence.

Legion of Logic wrote:

Did Jordan insult Trump or something? Curious where the petty attacks are being triggered.The attacks are not "petty". They are substantial and based directly on the man's writings. They are "triggered" because for the first time in his public career, people of actual intelligence with knowledge of Philosophy, History and Theology are reading his books, and discovering the man is a complete fraud, a charlatan, a liar and manipulator.

He intentionally deceives his audience, allowing them to draw whatever conclusion they like about his so-called philosophy. As an instance, the man is emphatically not in any meaningful way a Christian, but if you asked the people who have viewed his videos, you would find that probably a majority believe he is. When asked directly, he lies and obfuscates.

Statistics is the "philosophy of mathematics" and is best taught, not as an algebra or computer class, but as a rational way of reading numbers.

Student's t is a useful calculation (for example) but what is important is knowing the significance of the numeric answer. Is it too high or too low? Is a 4 better than a 3? So much effort is spent working "problems" to get the correct numeric answer, that the statistics student is kept from understanding what the number actually means or should mean in relation to the data set. For the most part, when statistics is merely a degree requirement for people outside the statistics department, it is often badly taught.

My google fu is failing me, can someone link to some examples of varying IQs in ranges from 100 to 150? The best I was able to find was Stephen Hawking has an IQ of 160. What would a Bill O'Reilly or Wolf Blitzer-level IQ be?

When I was getting my stats degree, one of my classmates took a graduate stats course from the psychology department. He was terribly shocked when he learned that it was a course on torturing the data, to make it say what you need it to say.

Ominous Cowherd wrote:

When I was getting my stats degree, one of my classmates took a graduate stats course from the psychology department. He was terribly shocked when he learned that it was a course on torturing the data, to make it say what you need it to say.Without a doubt a common situation, not just in the psychology department. Outside of the statistics section, statistics is sorta considered a foreign language, rather than a tool of analysis. Modern scholarship requires that the same journal article be restated in numeric terms (hopefully, without fudging the data set).

Alfred Marshall was one of the great economists and he always said he developed his work in mathematics, then rewrote it in English, and tore up his math papers.

I regret my history degree, especially since a good chunk of it was garbage. I wish I had pushed myself and gone into math, especially after binge watching Taleb and Keen's youtube videos.

@41

"When I was getting my stats degree, one of my classmates took a graduate stats course from the psychology department. He was terribly shocked when he learned that it was a course on torturing the data, to make it say what you need it to say."

Wouldn't surprise me.

Education departments do the same thing.

@43

"I regret my history degree, especially since a good chunk of it was garbage. I wish I had pushed myself and gone into math, especially after binge watching Taleb and Keen's youtube videos."

When I was pursuing my computer engineering degree at Purdue, I took a few Computer Sci courses (turned out to be worhtless compared to the equivalent courses in the electrical engineering department... odd, since Purdue's CS department is the first Cs department in the world).

Anyways, one of the students in the undergraduate CS program was a woman in her late 70s. She graduated.

@30 DonReynolds

Lawyers are notorious examples, where their verbal skill may be very high and their math skills practically non-existent. (My ex-wife was like that too.)I was just the opposite. My math scores were significantly higher than verbal on both the SAT and GRE, and I had perfect scores on the analytic and logic sections of both the GRE and LSAT, and yet still made the tragic mistake of going to law school.

Proof that intelligence != wisdom...

Even specific math IQ and verbal IQ are multifaceted. Algebra calculations are different than mathological proofs or understanding how a statistical data set applies to real life.

In simple math terms nobody is all around equal. We are all skewed toward certain highs/lows with diverse variances.

122, not 108.

"""

Self-selection among new GRE test takers

In order to convert the GRE scales to IQ equivalents, we need to know how self-selected new GRE takers are. The average GRE IQ of people who took the old GRE was about 114 with an SD of about 15. We know this because we can compare their verbal GREs with the verbal GREs of the subset of test takers who also took the verbal old SAT, and the verbal old SAT can be converted to an IQ scale (and then equated to old verbal GRE scores) since special studies have administered it to the general U.S. teenaged population.

"""

https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/11/28/converting-the-new-gre-to-iq/amp/

Legion of Logic wrote:

Did Jordan insult Trump or something? Curious where the petty attacks are being triggered.No, he insulted the truth, the real truth.

Yes, anti-derivative is a synonym for integral.

I used the term anti-derivative to emphasize that it's the opposite process.

Taking a derivative is the equivalent of tracing a 2-D shadow of a 3-D object.

Doing an integral is the equivalent of constructing a 3-D object based upon a tracing of it's 2-D shadow.

There should be "spatial IQ".

I noticed in tutoring math that most people who had decent math skills were good at either algebra or geometry. Those who were good at both could do calculus.

Well well, we seem to have struck a nerve. Did Vox figuratively throw stones in the water outside the gates of Moria? I have to say, the Watcher in the Water is much more frightening than what's crawled out of the Jordanetics sludge now.

Maybe I am missing something, but isn't the IQ bell curve chart that we usually see a median average that shows the number of persons in each score category rather than an arithmetic mean average that is just the sum total of sll the scores divided by the number of takers? It makes a bit of a difference as I recall from my college statistics course some 46 years ago.

@34 Snidely Whiplash

Most undergrad Philosophy study at the University level is "History of Philosophy" rather than actual PhilosophyIf by actual Philosophy you mean Logic, most of those courses have been subsumed into the Math programs. And then continental philosophy has dominated the departments at most US universities such that theres only a handful now that focus on analytic philosophy. The students will likely have an entire course on Nietzsche, but all they'll get on Wittgenstein is that he was a student of Russell's and talked a lot about language.

@51

Do you think nobody knows what the given name behind the pen name is?

Out of curiosity I finally broke and shelled out for an IQ test online. I got 106 which lands me in the 65.8 percentile of my country, lower than I hoped but still in the higher end of the bell curve. Its a good way to humble yourself and remind you that truth is, most of us are not nearly as smart as we think we are.

This comment has been removed by the author.

I just don't trust Peterson's numbers on his IQ. I can't explain why exactly, other than he lies about so many things that I wonder why his IQ numbers would be factual.

When I was in 7th grade public school in Tennessee they gave us the same test the army used, or so the teachers told us. They sent the results home to our parents. My dad said that I was 136. I asked, what does that mean? He said it means you can do whatever you want as long as you work hard at it.

Dad was pretty smart.

Hmph. Over the age of 30 or so, I pay less attention to IQ than actual performance. As Vox has previously discussed, there's a qualitative break point in reasoning capability. It seems to happen most often between +2 and +3 SD IQ, but I'm not at all certain it directly connects to IQ. But there are people who can do what Heinlein termed "encyclopedic synthesis"...and they are rare. Also invaluable, if you can get them into the right positions.

The notion of attributing status to IQ test scores in the USA is really a joke.

The whole culture has been morphed to hatred of White Christian man, i.e. the Founders, so much that public policies & laws openly discriminate against White men, every public space & most private orgs have "diversity" initiatives, and that's just what's out in the open. It's a lot worse behind the scenes.

@59

"encyclopedic synthesis"

If you're not putting someone like that in R&D AND a seat on the Board of Directors, he's probably being misused.

@51 Hey, Bucknell is a good school. I live close to there myself. (((Philip Roth))) and (((Les Moonves))), whose parents knew the value of a good education, went there. Also, alumni Jay Wright won my University two national championships in basketball. How many NCAA tourneys has your school won ted?

Oh, look, some San Francisco AIDS donor is trying to poz the blog.

Stg58/Animal Mother wrote:

Well well, we seem to have struck a nerve.No, just "Anno Ruse", who is probably Tad, got his post deleted and was triggered.

KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia wrote:

99th verbal here, but a mere 90 in math! No wonder Calc 1 was not too bad, but Calc 2 was a struggle!!

You know what they say -- if you're brilliant at Math, you become a mathemtician. If you're good at math, you become an engineer. If you're mediocre at math, you become an economist.

And if you are bad at math, it's humanities, baby!!!

Humanities girl here. I'm clearly not into math, but I can grasp the obvious fact that a cup of boiling water in a cold bath doesn't make the water warm.

Raw brainpower doesn't isn't enough if you don't have a basic acquaintance with reality.

This comment has been removed by the author.

@63

He has an out for that.

He was never was admitted to any school, because every one he applied to, he included a self-portrait, while only wearing his swastika panties.

Nope, sorry, it's a Retard.

Who the fuck is Tod Beale?

Servant of the Chief wrote:

Who the fuck is Tod Beale?That's Tad Beale.

Servant of the Chief wrote:

Who the fuck is Tod Beale?It's Tad. Note the original comment, and the obsession with riposteing Vox's ass. That's a dead giveaway; Tad is a flaming faggot homosex practitioner.

Tad isn't pozzed. Tad IS The Poz.

However, that still won't save him from an early overnight stay at the funeral home.

Aeoli wrote:

122, not 108.

"""

Self-selection among new GRE test takers

In order to convert the GRE scales to IQ equivalents, we need to know how self-selected new GRE takers are. The average GRE IQ of people who took the old GRE was about 114 with an SD of about 15. We know this because we can compare their verbal GREs with the verbal GREs of the subset of test takers who also took the verbal old SAT, and the verbal old SAT can be converted to an IQ scale (and then equated to old verbal GRE scores) since special studies have administered it to the general U.S. teenaged population.

"""

https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/11/28/converting-the-new-gre-to-iq/amp/

When was the new GRE instituted?

But I wouldn't know.group "ooohhh, ouch"

+1

Peterson's quantitative IQ probably isn't as low as 108-111.

According to the qsleap.com 99% verbal corresponds to a score of 740-800 on the old GRE and 68-75% quantitative to a score of 730-750. This implies an IQ of 149-159, suggesting Peterson scored closer to 800 than 740 verbal if his overall IQ is high 150s.

If Peterson's verbal score were as low as his quantitative, then his IQ would be 134-138, still two or more standard deviations above the general population's average.

The man is dissembling.

@77

Of course he's dissembling.

If he was dumber, he couldn't stick to the same idiotic explanations so well.

He's smart enough to keep his lies consistent with each other, but NOT smart enough to think up a set of lies which are consistent with discoverable facts.

Vox, is the GRE normed on the general population or university students who intend to enter grad school? Mensa accepts GMAT scores below the 98th percentile, because it is assumed that the average GMAT score is an average of university students, a nonrepresenative population. What I'm trying to say is that the 75th percentile on the 80s GRE is higher than the corresponding population percentile IQ.

According to Cia Verschelden's book Bandwidth Recovery, there is no such thing as intelligence anyway. We're all equal.

She writes, "This book argues that the cognitive resources for learning of over half our young people have been diminished by the negative effects of economic insecurity, discrimination and hostility against non-majority groups based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and other aspects of difference. Recognizing that these students are no different than their peers in terms of cognitive capacity, this book offers a set of strategies and interventions to rebuild the available cognitive resources necessary to succeed in college and reach their full potential. Members of these groups systematically experience conditions in their lives that result in chronic stress and, therefore, decreased physical and mental health and social and economic opportunity. The costs of the many kinds of scarcity in their lives - money, health, respect, safety, affirmation, choices, belonging - is seriously reduced "mental bandwidth, " the cognitive and emotional resources needed to deal with making good decisions, learning, healthy relationships, and more."

I know I'm convinced.

46. OGRE

Why tragic? I am a patent lawyer, EE/CS, and admittedly have grown disenchanted with the role. As likely I would have become with any profession after two decades of engaging it. Plus lawyers typically suck balls. OTOH it is remunerative, networkable into other sectors, and keeps my brain occupied with the subject matter. If you have a science or engineering degree, consider a transition that may buy you another 10-15 years of something to wrap your mind around while being compensated well.

I don't know what Peterson's motives are here, but like him or not there is NO way his IQ is below 120. Likely 130 or up.

And there's no way HE believes that.

He's clearly very intelligent.

Why do people forget the IQ is not the only measure of a man, his motives, and values?? No doubt the devil is very clever too. There's more to it.

Way to put that whole, "homosexuals are mentally unstable," myth to rest. He's more addle-pated than last time.

> Wait, when you say "anti-derivative" are you talking about integrals? I've never heard them called that.

Neither had I. Like you I had to Google it, and yes, it's the indefinite integral. Why one term was used rather than the other I have no idea.

OT: Stormy Daniels' DNC hatchet job lawyer gets caught red handed! Avenatti fingers the wrong Michael Cohen using leaked federal banking reporting docs. Libel, slander suit and federal investigation to follow! Good times!

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/

"I would tend to think that even a quantitative IQ of 108 would be sufficient to grasp what is, after all, a very simple mathematical relationship"

It is, but there are other obstacles, like politics. Peterson isn't applying all his limited powers of mathematical understanding to the problem .He has a conclusion in mind and he's manipulating numbers to get to that end.

Speaking as a naturally limited quantitative thinker (above average, I imagine, but not too far above), I am hampered not only by my intelligence or lackthereof but my innumeracy as well. I occasionally read about the history of mathematical thought, for instance, but I'm not in the daily habit of using math more complicated than arithmetic.

Even if I were as numerate as I am literate--which requires practice--I need to concentrate and put forth effort to grok things that come much easier to you and other natural matheletes. Peterson isn't putting forth the effort because he doesn't want to because he doesn't want to be a kooky nazi konspiracist or whatever.

@7- Put it this way: if you have clear thoughts and possess verbal intelligence, you can express yourself with admirable concision. But it alone doesn't make you concise.

Especially if you're intentionally obfuscating because you're a charlatan.

@40- Judging by his performance on Celebrity Jeopardy!, Wolf has negative I.Q.

Tublecane,

But you did teach pre-Noahic man how to use metals, smithing techniques, etc. Don't sell yourself short.

@50- I distinctly remember being better at geometry than algebra, because I could keep images of geometric figures in my head and was much more prone to loose my place with mere numbers. Plus, I liked to proof part.

I don't think I tried very hard at trigonometry or calculus. By that point in high school I was mentally checked out.

@62: "If you're not putting someone like that in R&D AND a seat on the Board of Directors, he's probably being misused."

With humility, I probably AM being misused. Certainly underused, at the moment.

@85 Tubelcane: "...but I'm not in the daily habit of using math more complicated than arithmetic."

Very few people are. Basic algebra, maybe. The higher stuff is partly for the understanding of concepts. As an example, anyone with an understanding of calculus will grasp the Laffer Curve...someone without that background will have a hard time with the idea.

Like most psychologists he is a low midwit. Those psychiatrist s like myself who can use R get such asking for power calculations, since they can't do them well in SPSS. They ones who are not allergic to the command line are considered weird by their colleagues.

More generally Vox, I want you to notice that nobody else pointed out that error to you.It's not an error. It's a reasonable use of the existing information. You cannot reasonably take a 62-year average for mostly US test takers from 1949 to 2011 (assuming that the number you gave is the actual average) and use that as the basis for an estimated conversion when there is a implied decline of nearly a standard deviation in just the 6 years since the new test was created and there is a huge change in the number of foreign examinees.

Sure, it's also likely that the GRE percentiles of whatever year Peterson took the test are somewhat different than they are now, but it's not sensible to think that the results from 1949 or 1959 are much more accurate than the results from 2010. Especially since so many of the more recent test takers are the elite students from foreign countries. If we were talking about US test takers only, I would find your core assumption entirely credible, but that average decline in the IQ of US test takers is compensated for, in full or in part, by the Chinese and Indian test takers.

If there was a chart for Old GRE IQ conversions, I would have used that. I am aware of the issue, having taken pre-1992 SAT myself. So, if you can find such a chart, I will use that. Until then, I will use the existing GRE IQ chart.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. When I was in the first grade, I tested at 167 too. Big friggin deal. I cannot even remember how to do long division, I'd be lucky if I tested at 115 today.

Hammerli280 wrote:

@85 Tubelcane: "...but I'm not in the daily habit of using math more complicated than arithmetic."

Very few people are. Basic algebra, maybe. The higher stuff is partly for the understanding of concepts. As an example, anyone with an understanding of calculus will grasp the Laffer Curve...someone without that background will have a hard time with the idea.

I don't think you actually need to understand the laffer curve mathematics to understand it in it's application. Especially since, in the real world, What the laffer curve measures is heavily influenced by non-mathematical emotional concepts.

"At what point do I feel like working more productively simply means that I get to keep a smaller percentage of my paycheck through increased taxes." Writ large across an entire population is something you can understand intrinsically without requiring advanced economic mathematics.

Math is definitely hard. Especially fractions.

I occasionally wonder if there is a FAR greater variance in the 'communication Gap' between 95-105 intelligence than there is between 105 and 125 or 95 and 75.

It's like people barely above average intelligence and people barely below average are simply incapable of communicating simple concepts, even if the point spread is very very low.

Ian Stein wrote:

Math is definitely hard. Especially fractions.Bah, math is easy. Remembering formulae, now THAT is hard. Multiplying 12 digits times twelve digits takes only a few seconds in your head, but throw a decimal point in there? new Formula. Ugh.

maniacprovost wrote:

Anti-derivative is something akin to the indefinite integral. There is an abstract difference between the two but I don't know that it has any practical relevance.They're different things, if closely related.

F(x) = integral of f(x)dx from 0 to a (indefinite integral)

Integral is the operation of summing numbers. Anti-derivative is the function F(x). Calculating the integral give us the anti-derivative, but the process/formula is not the end product.

When A = B, you still call those two things A and B.

Refresher on the definitions.

Thanks, good SirHamster, but I still don't know if there is a practical difference.

I occasionally wonder if there is a FAR greater variance in the 'communication Gap' between 95-105 intelligence than there is between 105 and 125 or 95 and 75People of average intelligence are barely communicating. The words and phrases they use are rarely grammatically correct, and if you were to literally parse the words, they would not accurately reflect the intended meaning.

They understand each other because they share a common culture and common assumptions, a jargon of sorts.

When they are working from different assumptions, the bridge is uncrossable.

This is yet another problem with diversity.

I guess that depends on how practical you find different names and definitions to be.

African or European swallow?

> As an example, anyone with an understanding of calculus will grasp the Laffer Curve...someone without that background will have a hard time with the idea.

Not really. The Laffer curve is merely one instance of the law of diminishing returns, which pretty much anyone can grasp.

> Refresher on the definitions.

I'm pretty sure those definitions weren't in use when I was in college. But that was quite a while ago, and my memory could be wrong.

African or European swallow?Can they carry a coconut?

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anyone with high school algebra will understand a parabola. Except at the maximum, there are two pairs of x that result in the same y. That is the Laffer curve. The Laffer assumption, which is laughable, is that the US economy is always at the upper value of x and there is only a lower x that will result in the same tax revenues.

This comment has been removed by the author.

hey're different things, if closely related.

F(x) = integral of f(x)dx from 0 to a (indefinite integral)

Integral is the operation of summing numbers. Anti-derivative is the function F(x). Calculating the integral give us the anti-derivative, but the process/formula is not the end product.

When A = B, you still call those two things A and B.

Refresher on the definitions.

What I get out of this is that the integrals are areas under a curve and anti-derivatives are tangents of the function.

Somehow, I aced calculus. I'm still mystified by this fact.

> The Laffer assumtion, which is laughable, is that the US economy is always at the upper value of x and there is only a lower x that will result in the same tax revenues.

The actual figure that maximizes tax revenues appears to be somewhere between 14-21% from the figures I've looked up in the past. I'd have to do some research to find them to demonstrate it though.

But why exactly should we want our government to get the maximum revenues it can get?

> Somehow, I aced calculus. I'm still mystified by this fact.

Likewise.

This comment has been removed by the author.

James Dixon wrote:

> The Laffer assumtion, which is laughable, is that the US economy is always at the upper value of x and there is only a lower x that will result in the same tax revenues.

The actual figure that maximizes tax revenues appears to be somewhere between 14-21% from the figures I've looked up in the past. I'd have to do some research to find them to demonstrate it though.

But why exactly should we want our government to get the maximum revenues it can get?

I never met anyone who wanted to maximize government revenues.

There is a maximum point and government revenues decline on either side of that point.

The Laffer argument is that the US government has always overshot the maximum point and ended up collecting less revenue, but could collect the same revenue after tax reduction.

The Laffer argument is that the government is trying too hard to collect revenues, but would collect as much (or more) by tax reductions.

This comment has been removed by the author.

>>I don't think it's even possible to have a 150+ IQ with math at 110. The Verbal would have to be 190+, and you just don't see that kind of disparity between math and verbal...

A lot of math IS verbal. Pick up a book on Analysis, Abstract Algebra or Number Theory. Sit with it and realize what is going on, math is a language, and those cognitive skills that make one good at reading, writing, literary analysis, exposition......any language related task, are the same skills that will get you through these maths, the most significant cognitive skill being short term memory processing. I think that most people who score very highly on verbal but only fairly on quantitative just hate and fear math. They are really repulsed by it, don't want anything to do with it. If they would just relax, and take math on it's own terms, look at it, think about it, try their hand at it with patience, I think they would do much better on tests.

Fuck off, Aeoli. I did not make "a serious math error". I did not do any math at all. Now take your tedious spergy schtick elsewhere like you already said you would. In fact, why don't you go and complain to the people who make the chart and demand they correct it. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

@114 Daniel

I have a decent collection of OLD math and physics books, some of them over a century old. Some of the physics has been bumped by technological discoveries, to be sure, but the math is intact. These old books read like novels, but when I pick up a modern textbook....it is almost unreadable. The nomenclature is so thick and the text is almost non-discript. A theory is explained with a formula, which is demonstrated by even more formula. No one seems to discuss the formula or how it might be useful, except with a weak example here and there.

It does not have to be like that. The modern textbook writers are not only using a different language, they are using an entirely different alphabet as well.

> I never met anyone who wanted to maximize government revenues.

You've never met a career politician or bureaucrat?

> The Laffer argument is that the government is trying too hard to collect revenues, but would collect as much (or more) by tax reductions.

Which, as you said, may or may not be correct. But given the figures I looked up seems likely for any time after the Depression.

The ironic thing, Aeoli, is that the only person who made an actual "math error" is you.

You should have said it was 123, because 122.7 rounds up.

But you are right in asserting that the chart called GRE to IQ calculator should not have been used to convert Peterson's GRE percentile to IQ. And if I was a sperg willing to spend more than a few seconds on it, perhaps I would have gone to the trouble of looking up the actual New GRE score from the percentile, then googled for the formula to convert that New GRE to as per the method created by Pumpkin Person.

What I'm trying to say is that the 75th percentile on the 80s GRE is higher than the corresponding population percentile IQ.It almost certainly is. In 1990, it was. It is believed to be lower now, although I don't see how they can be confident of that given how many foreign test takers there are now.

Don,

My texts from the late 1800's were quite verbal, explaining the theory. You can see that up until the late 1930's, through the war times. Then things seem to change slowly to one formula describing another with only footnotes to explain what you are supposed to use this for. These are engineering oriented texts so are designed for application to real world work.

Modern texts are written by and for aliens..... I think.

In the early 1960's many engineering colleges were getting rid of their practical machine shop programs that taught real world skills to young engineers who did not happen to grow up in a 'user' environment. By the time I came back to grad school in the early seventies those courses were gone. I had a dot Indian student bring me a Crescent adjustable wrench and ask what it was for...... but I LEARNED from some of the same to use a hack saw on the pull stroke....so much easier and no bent blades!!

God bless.

Don, always love your commentary.

DonReynolds wrote:

My good friend, Jimmy Goodloe scored 800 on the math section.That is actually not all that difficult. The problem space of the SAT tops out at about Algebra 2; it doesn't go into calculus or differential equations. However, if you can't work both fast and accurately you won't complete the full set of questions in the allotted exam time. This is where mastery born of much practice comes in. It's no wonder that the largest fraction of 800-scorers on the SAT math are the children of tiger moms.

(I took the SAT math and made it my bitch.)

This comment has been removed by the author.

This analogy is slightly inaccurate in the sense that you never have just one shadow but an infinite range of them. Simply amend to “based upon a video of its 2D shadows at many points in time” and we’re golden.

The reason for this is that an infinite family of potential uninteresting extrusions and solids of revolution exist for any given single 2D immersion.

your integrity still demands that you fix itI already did. You will note that I always knew it was a range, which is why I originally wrote 108-111. With more information, we can increase it to 108-123.

We cannot say it is ~123 because there are still too many unknowns, although we can say it is most likely towards the higher end of the range than the lower. Of course, the higher the estimate, the more likely it is that Peterson is simply lying. Which is my assumption.

You certainly didn't come to the cross because your personality is inclined to it.Not even a little bit. The point is not that spergs are vile and disgusting, it's that they are narcissistic and unnecessarily obnoxious. Don't be so anxious to score imaginary points in a nonexistent game. All you had to do was point out that the chart was not the ideal tool because it only provided a floor.

A theory is explained with a formula, which is demonstrated by even more formula. No one seems to discuss the formula or how it might be useful, except with a weak example here and there.The SOA study materials are like this. I thought I'd be able to pick it up and learn it, but things were not as obvious as it claimed it was.

I need to do a calc refresh and find some decent prob and stat books before I attempt a re-do.

No you were correct originally. The GRE is already filtered as a population with above average IQs wrt the general population. Scoring high on the GRE SLshoukd come with a handicap

The QGRE also has the least correlation to IQ (and the largest SD). It's not a particularly good measure in that regard.

I've deleted the more offensive comments but the archive link is in your Gmail if you want to reference them. Maybe you still have them anyway, I don't know how Blogger handles these things.

There's not much good I can still say, except that despite everything I'm still rooting for you. So long as you're with Christ and the church, we are absolutely aligned in purpose.

@109 We want our government to get the maximum revenues with the least taxes. That way we all FEEL good about how little taxed we are, and that motivates us to excel.

The Soviet method, and the top end of the Laffer Curve, is to tax everyone so much that no one has any incentive to work beyond the barest minimum, thus, "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."

@116- Current Year textbooks are excellent evidence for those who claim the purpose of modern education is to dumb students down.

I honestly think textbook makers expend more effort ensuring racial balance in glossy photographs than making sure human beings can read the text without wanting to blow their brains out.

Thanks, good SirHamster, but I still don't know if there is a practical difference.Depends on what you mean by "practical", but what it boils down to is that there are functions whose derivitives are not integrable, and functions whose integrals are not differentiable. The former is generally restricted to weird pure-math special cases, while the latter is fairly common in science and engineering because it's true of discontinuous functions.

I already did. You will note that I always knew it was a range, which is why I originally wrote 108-111. With more information, we can increase it to 108-123.

We cannot say it is ~123 because there are still too many unknowns, although we can say it is most likely towards the higher end of the range than the lower. Of course, the higher the estimate, the more likely it is that Peterson is simply lying. Which is my assumption.

If one accepts midwit is 1 to 2 standard deviations above mean, on modern IQ tests with a normed mean of 100 and standard deviation (sd)of 15, that range is akin to low midwit. What it is not is clearly superior: that is greater that 3 or 4 sd above normal.

I don't consider myself clearly superior -- research !Q measured as undergraduate as 130 -- 150 -- but the numbers estimated would be about what I'd expect from psychologists.

Research psychologists included.

@79 DraveckysHumerus

lawyers typically suck ballsYou answered the question right there. With the exception of a handful of people, I simply can't stand the lawyer culture. And law students are downright insufferable.

If I'd had any sense I would've quit after the first year, but the 'quitters never win' maxim had been drilled into my brain early on.

The balance/imbalance between the two is not something I've given much thought to, but Vox has gotten to something that I now believe to be true-

The imbalance in the two scores, with someone having a high verbal & a poor mathematical score, is the difference between ordered thinking/speaking/writing & not.

I know many people with high range verbal IQs and low maths, and like myself, we struggle to express ourselves in a cogent & often times, rational way.

My (new) theory is that when you read someone's writings that does have that balance, they will be vastly superior, due to the orderliness of their thoughts being in balance.

I'm probably not even explaining *this* in a cogent manner, either, but this is a light bulb moment for me.

I think it explains why someone like Dr. Jordy doesn't make logical arguments and why he also cannot forthrightly posit his ideas in the same manner Vox & others with balanced, orderly minds do with ease.

Why does everyone in this thread have to tell us what their IQ is or how they "aced" calculus but can't understand how they did it (false modesty)?

My IQ is three coconuts and a hairy mongoose, but damn it if I suck at transdimensional lemon soufflé reading!

@138 My IQ is nine and a half inches, but honestly, I've never thought of it as being that big.

@140 And such small portions!

Aeoli,

What is your quest?

You can't say "I Quit" without an I and Q. Unless you have a suitable verbal IQ...or suitable foreign linguistics...or just stop talking. Han shot 第一

Jordan Peterson became the greatest intellectual of our time in 12 parsecs, even if he does believe in Jung Earth Theory.

I'll stop talking now.

@143 relative to the current crop of public intellectuals, Vox could be 100% right on all points and Peterson would still be the greatest of the pop-culture public intellectuals of our time. Most of them got kicked out of the Special Olympics for drooling and public masturbation.

@ wreckage

I'd have more respect for your opinion if it wasn't patently obvious that (filtering the spectrum of white privilege through the lens of identity politics), 9.5" is a totally irrational number!

Fake News! Fuzzy Logic!

From VP 2014: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-definitive-iq-list.html

168+ Paul Allen, Microsoft founder

168 Norman Schwarzkopf, U.S. Army general

167 Bill Gates, Microsoft founder

166 James Woods, actor

160 Rush Limbaugh, broadcaster

151 Vox Day, game designer

140+ Hillary Clinton, U.S. senator

140+ PZ Myers, science blogger

140 John C. Wright, author

140 Bill Simmons, the Sports Guy

138 David Robinson, NBA

134 Al Gore, U.S. Vice-President

133 John McCain, U.S. senator

127 George W. Bush, U.S. President

123 John Kerry, U.S. senator

123 Richard Feynman, physicist

116 Barack Obama, U.S. President

103 Bill Bradley, U.S. senator

From commenter Manthor,

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: 210

Gottfried Leibniz: 205

Thomas Wolsey: 200

Blaise Pascal: 195

Voltaire: 190

George Berkeley: 190

Friedrich Schelling: 190

Isaac Newton: 190

Galileo Galilei: 185

Leonardo da Vinci: 180

René Descartes: 180

Francis Bacon: 180

Erasmus v Rotterdam: 180

Immanuel Kant: 175

Baruch Spinoza: 175

Johannes Kepler: 175

Martin Luther: 170

Georg Friedrich Händel: 170

Michael Faraday: 170

Johann Strauss: 170

Richard Wagner: 170

David Livingstone: 170

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: 165

Ludwig van Beethoven: 165

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: 165

Thomas Hobbes: 165

IQ of living people:

Michael Kearney: 200

Christopher Michael Langan: 195

Benjamin Netanyahu: 180

Sharon Stone: 155

@146- I always found suspicious the fact that Marilyn vos Savant was credited by the Guinness Book with the highest recorded I.Q. (228?) Because she's a woman, first of all, but also because her last name just so happened to be Savant. That's like what Stan Lee would name a smart character. Except of course her Christian name would have to alliterate.

This comment has been removed by the author.

OT: High IQ summond. Question. What energy device would Nikola Tesla design to surreptitiously cripple all 5G transmission modems. Breaking news via Deborah Tavaras has a Japanese company designing a subterranean transmitter to quell the fears of irradiating your little ones at Troy High School, Fullerton California the bold as a lion Joe Imbriano. What would Tesla design to counter his design?

Sorry, you’ve dialed the wrong number.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Moron_(psychology)

but can't understand how they did it (false modesty)?I think I was given false grades on the basis of being a girl in mathematics.

A small correction remains: If the upper limit of our range is the 75th percentile of a bell curve with mean 114 and SD 15 gives you 114+11=125.

Correction: it's 114+10.11, much closer to 124.

> So long as you're with Christ and the church, we are absolutely aligned in purpose.

That is the key, isn't it? As long as we keep that in mind everything will work out.

> We want our government to get the maximum revenues with the least taxes.

Nope. I want our government to operate on the lowest taxation level that lets it perform it's Constitutionally appointed duties. Details as to how much that would be are left as an exercise for the reader.

> Why does everyone in this thread have to tell us what their IQ is or how they "aced" calculus but can't understand how they did it

Misery loves company.

Hammerli280 wrote:

@62: "If you're not putting someone like that in R&D AND a seat on the Board of Directors, he's probably being misused."

With humility, I probably AM being misused. Certainly underused, at the moment.

I suspect that a significant number of people commenting here are similarly under-utilized, and excluded (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-excluded.html)

Very interesting thread. When I was 11, I got sent to the cloakroom for talking and found a list with the IQs of all my classmates. My best friend's was 96, bless her heart. She and I went to Bible camp and got baptized together, and she remained a faithful Christian until her death, was a practical nurse, and generally ok. She liked to read, too, but only romance novels. I was a National Merit semifinalist (and state finalist for the Betty Crocker Homemaker of Tomorrow!) but struggled, lacking discipline to study, since I could pass without it.

Jack wrote:

I suspect that a significant number of people commenting here are similarly under-utilized, and excluded (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-excluded.html)Why would being "utilized" be a goal or desired state?

If you won say 500 million in the lottery, would you worry about the rate of return on your checking account?

Snidely Whiplash wrote:

Jack wrote:

I suspect that a significant number of people commenting here are similarly under-utilized, and excluded (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-excluded.html)Why would being "utilized" be a goal or desired state?

If you won say 500 million in the lottery, would you worry about the rate of return on your checking account?

Point taken. I suppose the drive to accomplish not equivalent to IQ. And in any case, being "utilized" != intellectually engaged. Still, frustration/boredom at work quite significant, not just seen in educational system.

@100

"Thanks, good SirHamster, but I still don't know if there is a practical difference.

The integral is numeric.

The anti-derivative is the equation which the derivative was derived from.

@103

"Not really. The Laffer curve is merely one instance of the law of diminishing returns, which pretty much anyone can grasp."

No, it's a law of NEGATIVE returns.

At some point in the middle, you have a maximal amount of tax revenue. As you pass that point, tax revenue declines. At 100% income taxation, you have $0 tax revenue.

That's not diminishing (less INCREASED REVENUE per percentage point of tax-rate increase), it's declining (less REVENUE per percentage point of tax-rate increase).

@106

"The Laffer assumption, which is laughable, is that the US economy is always at the upper value of x and there is only a lower x that will result in the same tax revenues."

Laugher never stated any such assumption. He merely said that the then-current maximum marginal rate was too high.

He never said that no matter what the rate is, it's always on the upper-side of the curve.

@108

"What I get out of this is that the integrals are areas under a curve and anti-derivatives are tangents of the function.

Somehow, I aced calculus. I'm still mystified by this fact."

If you have a curve y=F9x)

The derivative is the formula for finding the tangent (dy/dx) to that curve for any value of x, which is expressed as y'= f'(x)

The integral of f'(x) gives you the aread under the curve F(x) between two points values of x: x0 and X1.

The anti-derivative is this:

If you are given f'(x) [the formula for finding the tangent at any value x], the anti-derivative is the formula for the original curve F(x).

It is typically expressed as y=F(x) + C (some unknown constant), unless at least one poing on the curve y=F(x) is known, by which C can be determined exactly.

@126

"I need to do a calc refresh and find some decent prob and stat books before I attempt a re-do."

Schaum's Outlines.

Cover all the same material, in more easily understood language, than textbooks from even 30 years ago. For only $35 brand new.

@132

"Current Year textbooks are excellent evidence for those who claim the purpose of modern education is to dumb students down.

I honestly think textbook makers expend more effort ensuring racial balance in glossy photographs than making sure human beings can read the text without wanting to blow their brains out."

For the past several decades, the K-12 text-book writers have looked to please exactly ONE population -- K-12 administrators in the state of California, because that's been the largest single market for K-12 textbooks.

I think the modern textbooks format of having far, far, far too many equations, and not enough explanatory text is due to the influx of (dot) Indians into the process.

Most dot-Indian engineers know the math like nobody's business. However, when you try to get them to relate the equations to the real world, they tend to falter.

India has long had an outsized proportion of math geniuses. They can do the math, but they are weak on the science and real-world translation.

@137

"Why does everyone in this thread have to tell us what their IQ is or how they "aced" calculus but can't understand how they did it (false modesty)?"

You don't have to actually understand Calculus to do it.

@146

"I always found suspicious the fact that Marilyn vos Savant was credited by the Guinness Book with the highest recorded I.Q. (228?) Because she's a woman, first of all, but also because her last name just so happened to be Savant. That's like what Stan Lee would name a smart character. Except of course her Christian name would have to alliterate."

I always found it suspicious because every time I read one of her newspaper columns, her answer always contains an obvious flaw in her line of reasoning.

@164

>>Why does everyone in this thread have to tell us what their IQ is or how they "aced" calculus but can't understand how they did it (false modesty)?"

You don't have to actually understand Calculus to do it.<<

So true. I aced Linear Algebra and Differential Equations. I learned how to calculate them, use them, but I never understood what determinants, eigenvalues or laplace transfroms are, amongst other features of the math sets that I learned to use but never truly understood. I have never found a professor who can explain what a determinant represents. Sure they can show me how to calculate it (simple, actually) but to simply explain what it means, as in the case of a derivative, never. Same with eigenvalues.

There are excellent engineers out there who, like me, don't really, fundamentally understand certain aspects of math, but use the math nonetheless, but I think it dangerous to use math that one doesn't truly understand.

I'm glad that most engineers don't think this way, though, otherwise technology would have stalled at the level of development of about 1840.

Electrical Engineers didn't really start learning and using calculus until Oliver Heaviside started working on the problems of Transmission Lines not behaving as expected (especially the first Transatlantic Telegraph Cable, which was so slow (5 symbols (not letters, mere dots or dashes) per minute, that they tried to speed it up with higher voltages and literally burned it out within a week.

Mechanical Engineers *might* have started using Calculus earlier, but I don't see any evidence that they were preferring Calculus over algebraic approximations (which were well within the error tolerance of the measurement tools of the time).

## Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.