Riot IQ Research

The RIOT IQ Test is officially here in early access! We've developed the first professional, purely online IQ test. First 2,000 users get 50% off with code: EARLYACCESSRIOT Redeem at the Full RIOT test checkout: riotiq.com/assessments/Fu…

@EndWokeness You might need to take this test @RiotIQ

F*ck multipolarism and third worldism American dominance all the way 🇺🇸

"U.S. can no longer be the sole author of the terms, we have to share power with China." Tucker:

ICYMI: Our latest podcast episode (with guest @GarettJones) is essential viewing. ✅Socialists' pyrrhic victory in Argentina 🇦🇷 ✅Are national mean IQs trustworthy? ✅The "deep roots" of national prosperity ✅What's at stake with immigration policy youtube.com/watch?v=EMQcLD…

Check out the full (open access) article to learn more: doi.org/10.1016/j.evol…

One of the great mysteries in evolutionary psychology is how humans evolved to be so much smarter than other primates. A new article in "Evolution and Human Behavior" proposes a theory to answer this question. The Coalitional Intelligence Hypothesis proposes that forming successful "coalitions" (groups of humans who may or may not be related) to solve problems selected for intelligence. This process required underlying abilities that evolved earlier--such as the ability to identify social signals, rooting out social cheaters, and developing a theory of mind in others--that combined to make coalitions possible. Once a coalition was possible, a human's intelligence could contribute to the group's functioning and survival--and other organisms rewarded smarter coalition members because they contributed more.

The guest for our newest episode of the RIOT IQ podcast is the one and only @GarettJones! He and I discuss how IQ influences group outcomes, plus: ➡Why Malaysia is the "anti-Argentina" ➡How IQ matters more than the psychologists often realize ➡Immigration & IQ ➡The accuracy of the slogan "Diversity is our strength" Watch here: youtu.be/EMQcLD0X1TU?si…

Had an great time talking IQ spillovers, culture transplants, and immigration with the excellent and well-informed psychologist @Russwarne of @RiotIQ: youtu.be/EMQcLD0X1TU

We recorded a great new episode of "The IQ and Human Intelligence" podcast with @GeorgeMasonU's @GarettJones. You won't want to miss this one when we release it next week!

How stable are RIOT scores? We conducted a test-retest study to find out. 124 volunteers took the Full RIOT twice (median time between testings = 132 days). Their RIOT IQ scores were correlated r = .923, high level of stability across the time interval (see scatterplot). We also found a practice effect in the data: the average participant had a score increase of 3.95 IQ points. This magnitude of IQ scores gain is typical for IQ tests. Beyond overall IQ, other RIOT scores function similarly to what we see on traditional IQ tests. This shows that the self-proctored online format does not impact the stability of IQ scores.

📢New Podcast Episode! We talk with Dr. James J. Lee about why IQ is still widely misunderstood, how intelligence researchers actually think about it, and: ✅what IQ measures ✅what it does not ✅why many public discussions around IQ miss the mark 🔗 youtu.be/SBryjahpfic

In this episode with physicist and entrepreneur @hsu_steve, we discuss: ➡️AI’s role in scientific discovery ➡️East vs. West's attitudes on genetics ➡️AI’s impact on physics ➡️China’s rapid scientific growth ➡️Importance of human IQ alongside AI youtube.com/watch?v=7f4S58…

54M in US have IQs <85. Intelligence is a fundamental property of all humans & influences numerous important aspects of life. 21st century research findings are amazing. Yet there are almost no dedicated undergrad courses on human intelligence in US psych departments. Want to help: hirefoundation.org

Thanks for this wide ranging discussion and the first public introduction to the HIRE Foundation which supports intelligence research: hirefoundation.org

🚨New podcast episode🚨 This chat w/@rjhaier covers more ground than any other episode. Topics include: ➡️The newest frontiers in neuroscience & IQ ➡️Whether society is warming up to IQ research ➡️New orgs that advance the field of intelligence Watch: youtube.com/watch?v=2VKBY0…

Read the full article here: doi.org/10.1016/j.paid…

Are people good at estimating their own intelligence? A new study says no. Not only are people bad at judging how smart they are, their estimates are more strongly related to personality traits, like conscientiousness and risk approach, than IQ. Also, men rate themselves more highly than females, and college degree holders rate themselves more highly than non-degree holders The authors' conclusions is clear: ". . . people are not good at estimating their test-derived intelligence, which is partly a function of their demography and personality" (p. 5). Based on this study and prior research, the authors argue that asking someone how smart they are measures their self-confidence--and not their IQ.

@Devlinside123 @ICAJournal The g x conscientiousness interaction is statistically significant, but only because the sample size is so large. The change in R is < .01. For practical purposes, the two traits are additive.

Interesting that smart and conscientious is not additive, I’d surmise that finding would fail if college was the far harder version of 100 years ago—graduate college IQ was far higher then—or the college classes were all math/engineering where IQ is needed for advanced classes… In other words, diligent, careful, hard working folks —conscientious—can succeed bc humanities isn’t that hard, especially today, but in math that’s not enough…

A new study in @ICAJournal investigates the utility of general cognitive ability (g), specific cognitive abilities (s), individual tests, and personality traits for predicting college GPA in college graduates. The findings: ✅g is the best single predictor of college GPA. ✅The only personality trait with predictive power was conscientiousness. ✅After controlling for g, almost all individual tests had little predictive power. This means that when the individual test scores did predict college grades, it was because the test was measuring general intelligence. ✅There was a conscientiousness x g interaction, but it had no practical significance. This means that the effects of being smart and being conscientious are additive. You don't get an extra academic boost from being both smart and conscientious. From the authors: "Those looking to predict college performance would do well to use a g-loaded predictor, instead of predictors in sub-areas or domain-specific abilities" (p. 14). The general findings support previous work and supports the mainstream view that (1) IQ is a powerful and (2) personality covers important non-cognitive behaviors that IQ tests don't measure. That can give researchers and the public more confidence in using these tests when making predictions.

@ICAJournal Read the full article (with no paywall) here: doi.org/10.65550/001c.…