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.
The whole "aptitude in life, health etc." was mostly misdirection from you guys saying "LOL IQ, people with low IQs can be good at other stuff". Sure, they can. But intelligent people are more likely to be good at it.
It wasn't misdirection. The reason I asked whether or not a well-adjusted 110 IQ poker player who studies and manages his bankroll is more or less likely to be successful than a 130 IQ player who doesn't study, tilts and drinks at the table was to point out that IQ isn't necessarily the determining factor. Clearly someone has to have a certain level of intelligence to be a winning poker player, but at a certain point IQ differences become negligible (unless we're talking about savants) compared to other elements.
It wasn't misdirection. The reason I asked whether or not a well-adjusted 110 IQ poker player who studies and manages his bankroll is more or less likely to be successful than a 130 IQ player who doesn't study, tilts and drinks at the table was to point out that IQ isn't necessarily the determining factor. Clearly someone has to have a certain level of intelligence to be a winning poker player, but at a certain point IQ differences become negligible (unless we're talking about savants) compared
It's misdirection. You severely handicapped the 130 IQ player with laziness, poor tilt control and substance abuse issues and then said "look, IQ is not the determining factor".
If I said "look at this 7ft guy with no arms, he sucks at basketball, height is clearly a poor indicator of NBA success," you'd probably find my argument unpersuasive.
no worries bro, my point is "smart" is ill-defined and a bunch of nerds all agree IQ is the way to measure it but it's more complicated than that but then the nerds all conclude nah IQ is the way and they all nod in agreement and pat themselves on the back. it's for sure correlated with performance in hard sciences but is not a proper measure of aptitude in life, health, etc. that luciom (and apparently most here?) make it out to be.
Well this is just an epistemic question then. If we find that IQ scores are highly correlated with the proposed g-factor, to the point of almost being a 1:1 correlation, you would basically be denying science and would have to come up with some alternative explanation as to why IQ has reproducibly, over time, been correlated with extreme skills in the fields that I listed before, and why low scores are so highly correlated with lack of intelligence to the point of lacking certain things like being able to understand hypotheticals, being able to do anything more than basic math (or even that at times).
It's just going to be one of those things where you have a tremendous burden of proof that science nerds are just making **** up in order to pat themselves on the back, especially since we're not talking about tiny sample sizes but a test that has been administered millions of times.
Absolutely no one is saying that intelligence is the only skill in life, but it is certainly a tremendous skill that you are taking for granted in this analysis of it. And the question always comes back to, why exactly are you trying to downplay the importance of intelligence and the use of measuring this intelligence? I think it comes down to you have some normative claim that you want to make, and the reality of distribution of intelligence is coming in the way of that point. The problem is, if your point is you want a more just society, blocking studying of intelligence doesn't help us at all in making that a reality. You're just hiding the problem and making it more difficult to figure out how we're going to deal with it.
I don't think anybody was disputing that. They are saying it's an important factor. Just how important depends on the endeavour in question.
Then you won't get much of an argument from me because I largely agree, but I will emphasize smartDFS's point that IQ-being-extrapolated-to-quantify-success-at-all-facets-of-life isn't reflected by the data when it comes to average IQs and above. I believe this is accurate when it comes to various of measures of success. Yes, genius level IQs will see more success at the very top of certain fields, but we're talking about a sliver of the population.
Lol ya. The anti smoking movement is sort of the gold standard of public health campaigns. They were able to convince people that smoking leads to health problems. The % of the population that smoked went way down. Then they started banning smoking in public places and it was popular because non smokers don't like the smell of smoking. That this was a vice or religious thing is a bizarre, clownish argument.
the way you do it in the USA , it's a vice/religious thing pretty clearly.
if it wasn't a vice/religious thing:
1) vaping (and nicotine patches and other alternatives to intake nicotine) would be encouraged, not demonized the same
2) smoking wouldn't be basically the ONLY behavior you can discriminate against in health insurance pricing under the ACA (this is a huge tell of religious-like zealotry btw)
3) you wouldn't have nonsensical, paradoxical, quite absurd situations where smoking cannabis is allowed while smoking tobacco isn't
4) you would see LESS focus society -wide (moving to other stuff, if public health was the goal and it wasn't instead predicated on vice) on smoking as a health problem now than in the past, given it's incidence in society is down a lot
it might have started sensibly (although I disagree here because they made up very bad science wrt passive smoking) but it quickly degenerated into demonization of a behavior, treatment of the addicted as trash and inferior people rather than as people who need help (a huge nono for public health), a ton of lies used (the nonsense rationales for excise taxes, which are purely vice taxes as there is no pigouvian externality to fix) and so on
It wasn't misdirection. The reason I asked whether or not a well-adjusted 110 IQ poker player who studies and manages his bankroll is more or less likely to be successful than a 130 IQ player who doesn't study, tilts and drinks at the table was to point out that IQ isn't necessarily the determining factor. Clearly someone has to have a certain level of intelligence to be a winning poker player, but at a certain point IQ differences become negligible (unless we're talking about savants) compared
well fact is you are implying here that IQ doesn't help with being more studious and managing tilt and so on
the way you do it in the USA , it's a vice/religious thing pretty clearly.
if it wasn't a vice/religious thing:
1) vaping (and nicotine patches and other alternatives to intake nicotine) would be encouraged, not demonized the same
2) smoking wouldn't be basically the ONLY behavior you can discriminate against in health insurance pricing under the ACA (this is a huge tell of religious-like zealotry btw)
3) you wouldn't have nonsensical, paradoxical, quite absurd situations where smoking cannabis is
You do know what "religious" means, right? I'm beginning to have my doubts. Is this going to be another one of those words where you have your own highly idiosyncratic definition perchance?
well fact is you are implying here that IQ doesn't help with being more studious and managing tilt and so on
Woah this is a great point and why his hypothetical is so flawed. The way we could fix it is to rather ask what percentage of x iq has this negative trait vs the percentage that has x+20 negative trait. And then we could really see whether on average the person with more IQ might not do better than the person with less IQ.
For instance, this study found that higher IQ individuals actually have less mental health disorders than an average IQ person in the UK.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...
These types of studies are what we should be looking at with respect to various groups within the distributions of IQ.
But yeah, there’s a good reason why no company just gives you an IQ test and then hires you based on that. They also do standard background checks and work histories to ensure you aren’t some cancerous person leaving a trail of destruction in your wake.
But certainly some jobs just self-select for higher IQs and there’s nothing you could ever mandate that would change that, because the jobs are just too complex for a below average IQ to perform. The very top of those fields will probably see almost no one with a merely average IQ as well.
That’s not to say that middle to lower middle IQs can’t become very successful in one field or another, using skills that are not as highly correlated with intelligence like strength, charisma, manual dexterity, dependability, aesthetic prowess, musical ability, honesty, integrity, and so on and so forth.
I mean even some of those — I didn’t look into them at all — might have some association with IQ, but I can definitely agree that at that level we are getting closer to traits that are more accessible to all levels of the IQ spectrum.
some of the most succesful companies in the most cut-throat sectors of the economy in the recent past actually did hire through iq-test proxies (albeit under stress).
What's a hackaton if not that?
You do know what "religious" means, right? I'm beginning to have my doubts. Is this going to be another one of those words where you have your own highly idiosyncratic definition perchance?
The Latin noun religio referring to obligation, bond, or reverence is probably based on religare, so religio and its English derivation religion connote a 're-binding'.
/
Newer research shows that in the ancient and medieval world, the etymological Latin root religio was understood as an individual virtue of worship in mundane contexts; never as doctrine, practice, or actual source of knowledge.[9][10] In general, religio referred to broad social obligations towards anything including family, neighbors, rulers, and even towards God.[4] Religio was most often used by the ancient Romans not in the context of a relation towards gods, but as a range of general emotions such as hesitation, caution, anxiety, fear; feelings of being bound, restricted, inhibited; which arose from heightened attention in any mundane context.[5] The term was also closely related to other terms like scrupulus which meant "very precisely" and some Roman authors related the term superstitio, which meant too much fear or anxiety or shame, to religio at times.[5] When religio came into English around the 1200s as religion, it took the meaning of "life bound by monastic vows" or monastic orders.
//
Religion is the submitting of yourself to a higher hiearchical set of behavioral duties as imposed by a clerical (ie unelected, unaccountable) class, with compliacne itself being the virtue, regardless of consequences, practicality, common sense.
Believing omnipotent beings able to enforce ex post the rules exist helps installing the hierarchy but you can have the same without the belief in those powerful alien beings.
Mask mandates are another very similar example of what i mean: all it takes to understand it's religious is the reaction, by believers, against people who don't comply.
They weren't treated in discourse and in the street like people who commit traffic violations (which are obviously in most cases exceptionally more dangerous for public health, even if you believe masks work to improve public health, which they don't).
Tht's how you are 100% sure, beyond reasonable doubt, the actual rationale wasn't public health (if it was, behaviors will be dissuaded and fought against in priority order based on their impact on public health).
A person smoking in a park doesn't affect public health. Yet the VICE POLICE, like in Iran if a woman shows her hair, shows up and treats you with particular hatred and violence. See countless videos of people disregarding mask mandates in public in Germany and elsewhere, and how they were treated compared to people who take a red light (which again, is INFINITELY worse for public health in most cases, unless the light is somewhere it shouldn't be).
You are clearly using that word in a much broader sense than I am, presumably to support your "both sides same" bullshit. "Oh, Republicans are religious nutcases who want to start a theocracy? Well, democrats banned smoking in parks, #bOtHsIdEs."
For comparison smoking regulation in Italy isn't religious. They let people smoke outdoor in hospital gardens. For now vaping is allowed in most places even where smoking is banned (Exceptions are like inside a train or a plane and very few others).
Me and wife actually vaped in 2015 while she was delivering birth ok, at the hospital? that's when it's not a religion.
You are clearly using that word in a much broader sense than I am, presumably to support your "both sides same" stance. "Oh, Republicans are religious nutcases who want to start a theocracy? Well, democrats banned smoking in parks, both sides".
Tbh i actually think banning smoking in parks, or mandating masks outdoor or to toddlers, which had widespread support among democrats, is A LOT more threatening to society than having 12% of the population being against all abortions no exceptions.
Like not even close. And lol at the idea that republicans majoritarily are theocratic inclined, they simply aren't. While democrats are, smoking and masks are examples, but the BIG RELIGIOUS WAR is breweing and it's about the environment . The war on meat and so on.
Tbh i actually think banning smoking in parks, or mandating masks outdoor or to toddlers, which had widespread support among democrats, is A LOT more threatening to society than having 12% of the population being against all abortions no exceptions.
Like not even close. And lol at the idea that republicans majoritarily are theocratic inclined, they simply aren't. While democrats are, smoking and masks are examples, but the BIG RELIGIOUS WAR is breweing and it's about the environment . The war on
Sizzling take.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...
Church of Fauci
During the COVID-19 pandemic, guidelines issued by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for masking children were out of step with peer nations. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control never recommended masking children under the age of 12 [1]. The World Health Organization did not recommend masking under the age of 6 and, for children ages 6–11, only in specific circumstance
.
Multiple international pediatric experts have expressed concerns about masking of children [4], [5] and, as we show in Fig. 1 , weighing the highest quality evidence we have on masking effectiveness with the potential harms, masking children appears increasingly unfavorable. The CDC’s unchanging policy in spite of this calls into question the agency’s ability to make appropriate, evidence-based guidance, particularly for the youngest in our society.
To date, there are no robust studies showing the impact of long-term masking of children, in part because no society has engaged in such an experiment. However, a growing number of papers document negative impacts on children (Fig. 1): shortness of breath and other discomfort, impaired recognition of emotions and facial expressions (most pronounced in 3–5-year-olds), reported negative effects on learning ability, and increased reported anxiety and decreased word identification which will likely disproportionately affect children with decreased hearing and non-native speakers.
See the bold, that's what torture achieves as well actually.
Yes, I get that you want to use "religion" figuratively as an extremely tenuous segue into ranting about Covid restrictions. I neither want to use "religion" figuratively nor want to discuss Covid restrictions. So, we appear to be at an impasse.
Yes, I get that you want to use "religion" figuratively to talk about Covid. I neither want to use "religion" figuratively nor want to talk about Covid. So, we appear to be at an impasse.
Well ok i only talked about that to counter the (imho insane) claim that republicans have more theocratic tendencies than democrats, for me we have abundant real proofs of the literal opposite.
Anwyay the claim isn't just about that although the mask mandate enforcement / hair veil enforcement is quite striking as an example. For smoking i already said what i think.
Do you want to do the Church of Greta next? or the Church of LGBT?
Religious mutilation of minors was unfortunately a common religious practice in many cultures. Religious food taboos were as well.
Well ok i only talked about that to counter the (imho insane) claim that republicans have more theocratic tendencies than democrats, for me we have abundant real proofs of the literal opposite.
Anwyay the claim isn't just about that although the mask mandate enforcement / hair veil enforcement is quite striking as an example. For smoking i already said what i think.
Do you want to do the Church of Greta next? or the Church of LGBT?
You understand that these are figurative uses of the word "religion", don't you?
"Democrats be more theocratic than republicans" is just insane. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Otoh i don't necessarily agree with the idea that religiousness implies lower IQ.
I mean i do agree that at the very top of IQ you have far fewer religious people, yes (which is why most people in this forum are atheists).
But among the masses the correlation isn't that clear, if you have data on say IQ 90 people being a lot more religious (in your meaning of it) than IQ 110 people i'll study that.
Otoh i don't necessarily agree with the idea that religiousness implies lower IQ.
I mean i do agree that at the very top of IQ you have far fewer religious people, yes (which is why most people in this forum are atheists).
But among the masses the correlation isn't that clear, if you have data on say IQ 90 people being a lot more religious (in your meaning of it) than IQ 110 people i'll study that.
Just a hunch. I mean, you have to be pretty dumb and completely lack critical thinking and basic reasoning skills to buy into all that horseshit. Call me a bigot if you want, that's what I think and I'm not going to change my mind about it.
