IQ (moved subtopic)
^^Hey Luciom, can you remind me again how smart JD Vance is? Above, same, or below the average MAGA chode?
I have no problem with schools using affirmative action to help people like Vance with humble backgrounds.... but maybe not in law school where these idiots start becoming dangerous. And they got to find smarter people then Vance or the whole thing just looks ridiculous and all you're doing is de-valuing your own department.
other headlines from source Cremieux Recueil's substack:
[quote=Cremieux Receuil]Updated Estimates of IQ Within Israel
Have Israel's traditional ethnic differences washed out with time?[/quote]
[quote=Cremieux Receuil]Maybe You're Just Not Smart
Test anxiety is more about low IQs than anxiety interfering with performance[/quote]
[quote=Cremieux Receuil]Woke Madness
Why do more left-leaning individuals tend to be more mentally ill?[/quote]
luciom -- are you cremieux recueil?
Question for everyone who doesn't like IQ as a measure - what do you mean when you say Trump is a moron? I can tell you what I mean, and it involves IQ.
But significantly most people who would prefer a Democratic (or Republican) nominee disagree with me on just about everything to a significant degree, so this hypothetical is about as impactful as my vote no matter how I choose to make it.
I have absolutely no idea why you’re saying that I think you agree with most people who vote Democratic. All I said was IF you have a preference for a certain candidate, which you already said you do, and you use “this is a safe state” as reasoning for not voting for that particular candidate, then if everyone thought the same way as you it would not be a safe state anymore. There is absolutely nothing controversial about that statement.
Now you can get around this by saying you don’t care that you’re acting in a way that if everyone acted that way outcomes you prefer won’t happen, because you think you’re one person and thus don’t matter, but if everyone thought that way that had your same preferences every election, your preferred candidate would always lose.
You mischaracterized it by saying I'm a single-issue voter. I clarified that (a) I'm not, but also (b) that foreign policy crosses so many disciplines, it can't be characterized as a single issue like guns are, for example.
I don't think there are many issues in our society that just exist in a vacuum, for that matter. Civil liberties and the economy all have very slippery slopes that aren't purely academic. When we're at war, civil liberties are trampled upon so the values on which we base our union loses legitimacy, we inflate the currency without investment in anything but destruction, we create more enemies than we need to have putting a larger target on our back which stretches resources even more thinly to now protect us from the threats that didn't exist before said war. And said war is never really won (we often leave battegrounds worse than when we entered them), so we did all of that for nothing. And when we fight proxy wars or fund belligerent conflicts, we're just performing milder versions of actually being at war, directly.
We’re equivocating here. If you vote purely based on foreign policy and don’t vote on anything else, you’re a single issue voter. So a) already takes care of that because you said you don’t do that. B) is just you speaking very fancy about why you’re anti-war, which is fine. I’m not going to get into why I think you’re completely wrong about not fighting or supporting any wars because this is the election thread.
I didn't because I suspected that the graph either was fabricated out of thin air, or more likely, was presenting data graphically in a misleading way. My skepticism isn't proof that the graph did a good job of depicting the data.
it isn't at all, there is no misleading perception to get from that data. You don't look at it and start believing anything about reality that is false, do you?
Yes you do, it makes it look like there are a bunch of 45 IQ black people that took the SATs… I feel like at that point it would be a matter of people just intentionally messing up and not them actually having 45 IQ lol or that the standardization only works for test scores that are closer to the median.
But yeah showing proportion without the context of raw numbers or standard distribution is a classic way of manipulating perception using stats.
I didn't because I suspected that the graph either was fabricated out of thin air, or more likely, was presenting data graphically in a misleading way. My skepticism isn't proof that the graph did a good job of depicting the data.
In order to be misled, you need some actual truth the graph would move you away from toward something else that is actually false.
What would it be?
it isn't at all, there is no misleading perception to get from that data. You don't look at it and start believing anything about reality that is false, do you?
In order to be misled, you need some actual truth the graph would move you away from toward something else that is actually false.
What would it be?
SAT Score <> IQ for starters
Yes you do, it makes it look like there are a bunch of 45 IQ black people that took the SATs… I feel like at that point it would be a matter of people just intentionally messing up and not them actually having 45 IQ lol or that the standardization only works for test scores that are closer to the median.
But yeah showing proportion without the context of raw numbers or standard distribution is a classic way of manipulating perception u
Keep in mind the focus was on the 3 sigma on the right, that even if ultra rarified nationwide, aren't in elite schools.
The contest was Ivey league discriminating against asian, and the recent scotus decision on that.
He has to give you both sides of the curve no matter how minuscule the number of actual test taker at IQ 45 and IQ 155 (values btw that are similarly represented numerically in a population of median IQ of 100).
There is no mislead attempt. Idea is if 80% of the smartest in the country are asian, you cannot say "look I am accepting more than them than their proportion in the population so I am not discriminating against them".
If you admit based on IQ or IQ proxies, and you have a very low acceptance rate, your normal non discriminatory class should be almost all Asians, that's what the chart helps you understand
wish i could go back in time and intentionally answer every SAT question wrong to become the first person to register a zero on the IQ scale
IQ isn't a quantifiable statistic. Only midwits think about IQ. Posting IQ charting statistics is legitimately hilarious. Doubly so that they show Asians and Whites having significantly higher IQs than black and hispanic people
Denying that IQ exists because minorities score lower on IQ tests is pretty lol. It's one thing if you want to critique the questions asked in the test, but to say that a test result is "not a quantifiable statistic" when it's pretty much the definition of a quantifiable statistic is just nonsense.
IQ was used to discriminate so it doesn't exist, that's the leftist logic.
Btw they need to do that to justify many of their other claims so I see why they sent objective reality.
It's like the antivaxers who deny virus exist, it's unassailable
IQ exists, measuring IQ is beyond dubious. Intelligence is a spectrum. Intelligence tests have no way to quantify various spectrums in a meaningful manner.
Denying that IQ exists because minorities score lower on IQ tests is pretty lol. It's one thing if you want to critique the questions asked in the test, but to say that a test result is "not a quantifiable statistic" when it's pretty much the definition of a quantifiable statistic is just nonsense.
there are dozens of tests used to test/quantify IQ, each of which tests for different things and can result in widely varying scores. which test are you referring to when you say IQ test?
no such confusion when referencing height
further problems when conflating quantifiable IQ score with ethereal/subjective notions of smartness, esp when everyone is working with different personalized definitions
