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.
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
If everyone voted in accordance with my preferences, my preferred candidate would win.
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.
We can't have the advanced society we're trying to build and have the empire, so this isn't a single issue.
IQ exists, measuring IQ is beyond dubious. Intelligence is a spectrum. Intelligence tests have no way to quantify various spectrums in a meaningful manner.
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.
IQ exists, measuring IQ is beyond dubious. Intelligence is a spectrum. Intelligence tests have no way to quantify various spectrums in a meaningful manner.
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.
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
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?
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.
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"
What's the point of putting a number on it?
I always thought IQ denial was a pretty fringe thing, not so sure now.
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.
If I am reading this chart correctly, it is purporting to show that something like 25% of people who take the SAT have an IQ below 60, and a material percentage have an IQ that is less than or equal to 45.
That strikes me as highly improbable.
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.
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
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.
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.
How are we measuring intelligence then, guys? If you don't like IQ, presumably you have a different measure? Or are we just not measuring it at all, because it's unfair that some people are smarter than others?
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.
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
Nice discussion.... but back on topic soon please
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.
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 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 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.
