IQ (moved subtopic)

If that's the claim why do you refuse to generalize it to all the unproven claims that underpin all ideologies, whether they are religious or not?

Beliving the labor theory of value is true is the same as believing the garden of eden story (in some form, even metaphorical) is true

No I agree, that’s exactly what I’m saying actually. But they will still apply filters to those people to make sure they aren’t completely destructive personalities. And the better they do, the more they will look over past indiscretions in the hopes of striking gold.

Because some theories are more plausible than others? I have no idea what the labor theory of value says, but I suspect it's not as batshit insane as the magic guy in the sky theory.

Like, seriously, are you putting e.g. the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics on the same footing as sky daddy because both are unproven? Really coming out swinging with the zingers today, champ.

LTV is the underpinning of all marxist economic theory: that the entirety of all value is exclusively derived from labor, capital is just labor crystalized or something akin to that.

That's what they use to claim that any remuneration of capital is theft from workers and so on.

No i gave you the examples. I want to put the belief in gender theory on the same page, the belief that humans would go extinct because of the climate in 100 years unless we go to net 0 carbon emissions as well, the belief mask mandate for toddlers work and so on and on.

If we started mandating atrocious practices predicated on multiverse theory yes that would enter the picture as well.

Say "murder isn't a problem at all given you still exist in infinite other universes", get what i mean?

If your suggestion is that there are people in the world who adhere to non-religious ideologies with religious-like zeal, you won't get much argument from me there. Still, the sharp end of my disdain will always be reserved for the sky daddy adherents. After all, there is a reason we don't say that religionists adhere to the bible with Marxist-like zeal, isn't there?

As far as plausibility goes, yes, Marxism being a good political system, no matter how unlikely, is still infinitely more likely than sky daddy. Do you see why? While I obviously don't agree with Marxism, I certainly wouldn't say that someone is as stupid for believing in Marxism as for believing in sky daddy. Marxism would have to violate every known law of physics for that to be the case.

IQ is very good for predicting academic aptitude, which is what its precursor, the g-factor, originally set out do

Then a bunch of academics took it upon themselves to find a metric for general intelligence, and instead of doing that they just went with g-factor, because being good at academics was to them an obvious measure for general intelligence. Go figure.

Thus the concept of IQ was born, and debates on intelligence has largely been ruined since.

If the claim is simply "people who adhere to ideologies with religious-like zeal are generally less intelligent than those who do not", then I wholeheartedly agree. I think if you can legitimately be described as any sort of "-ist", your chances of being a moron probably shoot up pretty significantly. Perhaps with the exception of onanist.

Stupidity is not measured on bad results, although bad results are often what happens when you're stupid. Much like poker, being a bad or good player is based on your thinking process in the hand, not on how the board runs out. But that having been said, I do not agree that Marxism has been a more destructive influence on society than religiosity, although it certainly gave it a run for its money.

What is "general intelligence" if not "academic aptitude"? Is being able to build a shed considered "general intelligence"?

I think a large part of the issue in all these discussions is that while people don't mind admitting that they're short, or lacking in physical strength, or below average in pretty much most traits, nobody likes being thought of as stupid. So, it seems we now have to bend over backwards to either define stupidity out of existence, or come up with participation trophies so that the dumb dumbs get to excel in other areas, then lump those areas in with the intelligence metric so that nobody is actually "low intelligence" any more.

Joe might not be great at English or maths, but he's real intelligent with unblocking pipes and he can wire a mean plug. So, generally, Joe's just as intelligent as everyone else.

If that's the case and we're just looking at the empirics, then the most successful economies in the world are those that take quite seriously the supposedly insane liberal paradigm you are talking about. How about consider that it might be beneficial to transition away from fossil fuels in order to prevent climate change, despite you railing against it. I mean it's not like you're talking on a moral highground, as you say that the chaos that will come from billions of climate refugees is worth it if Europe gets a little bit nicer weather.

You're putting the cart before the horse when it comes to secular liberal ideology. There is a self-corrective mechanism possible to justify why our side is ok to sometimes go a little overboard when it comes to masking, lockdowns, and trans people. We can use the academic structures to study these policies and make real time corrections. Whereas if you're operating on a Christian paradigm, those self-corrective mechanisms aren't so clear. Marxism takes the L not because it can't have self-corrective mechanisms in theory, but because the dictates that it puts forth are also trash and have proven to be so, while liberalism continues to survive as the only ideology that can continuously adapt to the times for the better.

Actually right now we have the 2 most succesful blocks in the world (USA and EU) doing very different things, with the USA still pumping oil & gas and minimial disruption to the economy related to emission reduction, and the EU allin on the green socialist craze, and we are performing horribly worse since we started the green insanity so i am not sure you can use it to prove that green socialism is a smart choice.

"under christian paradigm the self corrective mechanims aren't so clear", except they all started as theocracies and then they moved from that differentiating policies in competition between them toward a full rejection of the christian paradigm far later on.

The history of europe is the history of self corrective mechanisms to deal with theocracy, from "cesaro-papism" on

No.

I didn't refuse to acknowledge anything about IQ distributions. My criticism has nothing to do with IQ distributions.

The consistency of mathematics can't be proven in any convincing manner so math and scientology are basically the same. Totally non hack thinking!

Yale is pretty notorious for legacy admits. Yale are the WASP bluebloods. They let George W Bush into Yale ffs. I don't know the numbers for every school, but I've heard it reported that a lot more people are networked into the Ivy League than get in by way of considering potential against historical intergenerational oppression.

These are just facts. We can debate about what's right or wrong. No doubt you think it's fair to break someone legs, challenge them to a race, then point and laugh at them as they struggle. That's an opinion. But to say that acceptance into Yale Law as a white man can only be accomplished with exceptional intelligence is just naïve beyond comprehension. There are so very few institutions not subject to the influence of wealth and dynastic networks. To think that some WASP nest like Yale would be one of them really exposes you as super ignorant.

I suspect that this used to be more true than it is now. If you are prepared to donate very, very big money (e.g., get a building named after you), that is super helpful for admissions. But at this point, according to college counselors, you shouldn't expect any real boost from having a parent who attended the school.

The phenomenon you describe is much more important in the professional sector job market imo.

then what was your criticism?

I explained my criticism. There is no point in repeating myself.

IQ type smartness is mainly important for endeavors where it is important that you can learn new things quickly and easily and make correct decisions about things that are not just a matter of opinion especially where there is a technique that is known to accurately reach that decision. Or, if there isn't such a technique you can often think one up. That's usually STEM stuff but not always. Most endeavors, however, mainly require other skills that are more important than almost perfect accuracy. Probably the easiest way to determine whether someone has high IQ smartness, is by noticing how much ability he or she has to cull down a complex debate into a few sentences.

yes you did

and it's absurd you ignored all the prior discussion of only low iq people would vote conservative but then once luciom points out glaring evidence to the contrary which is indisputable fact you then jump in and say "hey now that's over the line"

why is it that implying "people vote for republicans because they have low iqs ok" but then when that's flipped to democrats that's evil?

People with high IQs may be less likely to go on tilt, and while there is correlation between IQ intelligence and emotional intelligence, they're still different categories. There are people with high IQs who are emotional unstable and vice versa.

Not giving consideration to other aspects is reductive.