IQ (moved subtopic)
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.
822 Replies
If everyone voted in accordance with my preferences, my preferred candidate would win.
We can't have the advanced society we're trying to build and have the empire, so this isn't a single issue.
Yeah, I LOL'd because it's rather unintelligent to reduce intelligence to a handful of tests (let alone one) because there's no objective measurement of intelligence. To do so is a fundamentally flawed interpretation of intelligence.
I thought there was a standardised IQ test. If there isn't then I can see where you guys are coming from a bit better. Still, I see no reason why we shouldn't endeavour to measure intelligence same as we can measure anything else. Or that we should deny that various testing methods can be used as a proxy for comparing different people on what we colloquially call "intelligence". Every single person here has called someone "smart" or "dumb" before, so what's with the aversion to putting a number on it?
first tell us your ethnicity so we can appropriately bucket you and tell you your IQ percentile vis-a-vis your ethnicity and relative to other ethnicities
Higher IQ correlates strongly with better life outcomes. It’s really bad that we stopped measuring it as much just so that we don’t offend certain racial group.
What's the point of putting a number on it?
What's the point of measuring height and compiling those statistics? Or any demographic data for that matter?
given that intelligence highly correlates with success I think it’s very important to measure.
I always thought IQ denial was a pretty fringe thing, not so sure now.
I told you it wasn't months ago, it's incredibly normal on the left. I'd say majoritarian among democrat voters and almost universal among Europeans voting for "actual leftist" parties
Accept different outcome gaps among different individuals and groups can't be fixed, and aren't necessarily caused by any active discrimination.
IE, it answers the major political questions of the last generations in the USA
Also, it's possible various interventions aimed at IQ itself could allow for improvement, which should then become the main focus of society (if we want better lives).
But you have to measure the improvement quantitatively vs the cost of the intervention of course.
Like say nutrition during pregnancy vs access to parks and physical activity (say).
Maybe spending 10 billion on the former has a 6x impact, which then should make you spend on public nutrition supplements for pregnant mothers and give up on some parks
I would like one of the people arguing against IQ or IQ testing to explain what they mean when they call someone "smart", "dumb", "high intelligence", "low intelligence", "genius", "moron", etc. etc.
And then once that is explained, explain why whatever was just explained can't be measured.
no, there could be just a handful of people in the top and bottom bars
I don't have any inherent problem with the notion of innate intelligence, although I think measurement is complicated because creative intelligence and analytic intelligence often manifest in different ways, with the latter being quite a bit easier to test than the former. The question is how good a measure IQ tests are of innate intelligence. There have been studies that show IQ is not entirely stable, especially during adolescence:
https://www.aaas.org/taxonomy/term/9/the...
And there have been studies that strongly suggest that life stressors can cause performance on IQ tests to degrade, most famously this study:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/sendhi...
Therefore, I would say that it is better to think of IQ as a measurement of cognitive function at the time the subject takes the test, which is a step below saying that it perfectly represents innate intelligence.
rickroll, try and keep up. 😀 We went through that already.
IQ doesn't mean innate intelligence, for example we know for a certainty that lobotomy greatly decreases it.
But a past test result is still the best estimator of current intelligence for an individual within a wide age range
I think the problem with iq isn't that intelligence doesn't exist, it's that iq tests a narrow band of intelligence and does it quite poorly.
I would assume that's a given. I wouldn't expect someone to perform the same on a test of mental ability at every stage of their life any more than I would expect them to perform the same on a test of physical ability at every stage of their life.
100%
it's far from perfect, but most criticism is mostly copium
one of these things were people refuse to talk about various social issues is it prevents coming up with solutions - ie this
Well yeah, I mean, amputating both legs tends to decrease your height, but I don't think you'd argue that height isn't innate.
Nice discussion.... but back on topic soon please
You might think so, but in the popular imagination, IQ = innate intelligence. I'm not suggesting that IQ is unrelated to innate intelligence. I'm just suggesting that it is a less than perfect reflection of innate intelligence.
I am fine if someone wants to flesh out that argument. I'm taking issue with the "LOL IQ, it doesn't exist, and if it does, we can't measure it, and if we can, why bother?" position.
Ok let's say we have reasons to believe IQ is decently more malleable than height then