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.
Lol Sklansky. Thanks for the chuckles.
. What we should not be doing is trying to force the 92 IQ individual to be a doctor, a programmer, a scientist, etc and instead find ways to enable them to be productive, healthy, non-criminal members of society.
Problem isn't the 92, which can still easily fit.
Problems are those much lower than 92.
It should be noted that those numbers are kind of deceptive because they pertain to the whole population rather than the subset of the population whose thoughts are taken seriously. Among those people probably a good 20% percent of them have an IQ of 130. Half of this forum probably has at least that IQ. And when experts are giving their advice back and forth, that's not high enough to have a good chance to recognize a bad argument when many are coming towards you. Presidents need to be smarter than that.
And where do you figure you fit into god's great IQ hierarchy, Dave?
What is "general intelligence" if not "academic aptitude"? Is being able to build a shed considered "general intelligence"?
Just intelligence in general, so any kind of learning or problemsolving. So, the answer to your question about the shed is "yes", though it might have to be reduced into the parts where you learn how to build a shed and the parts where you do problemsolving on the parts of shedbuilding in general and this particular shedbuilding that you didn't learn, this to give the concept of IQ a fair shake.
For the most part my stated view isn't very controversial, but may be put a bit more diplomatically if you're learning about IQ in psychology courses. The validity of IQ, that is to say how well it can actually be applied to the real world, as a measure of intelligence is often debated.
The part where I hold that academia was and is particularly inclined to view IQ as a test of intelligence because it does so well at predicting academic aptitude is probably on the controversial side though.
Just intelligence in general, so any kind of learning or problemsolving. So, the answer to your question about the shed is "yes", though it might have to be reduced into the parts where you learn how to build a shed and the parts where you do problemsolving on the parts of shedbuilding in general and this particular shedbuilding that you didn't learn, this to give the concept of IQ a fair shake.
For the most part my stated view isn't very controversial, but may be put a bit more diplomatically
I guess that's all fine and is a useful measure in its own right, but I'm just looking for a metric and a scale to quantify what I mean when I say someone is "smart" or "dumb", and that doesn't involve the ability to build a shed, at least not from a design/set of instructions someone else already put together. I guess the metric I'm after doesn't really exist.
Hmm... might be a gap in the market there. d2's very own CMQ (certifiable moron quotient) test, coming to an annoying pop-up near you soon!
I guess that's all fine, but I'm just looking for a metric and a scale to quantify what I mean when I say someone is "smart" or "dumb", and that doesn't involve building sheds. I guess the metric I'm after doesn't really exist. Might be a gap in the market there. d2's very own CMQ (certifiable moron quotient) test, coming to an annoying pop-up near you soon!
I'd suggest an epistemological approach. Make a list of words and expressions, provide each a score, count the use over a number of words or posts, add up the score and and check the score against a pre-made reference table.
Make sure to add in your description of your instrument's method (that pretty much no-one will ever read) that an epistemological approach is ultimately rooted in the observer's interpretation of knowledge and truth (aka. you just made this **** up), and that while potentially useful, the results are best suited for further inquiry (aka. you might as well toss a coin).
Sell your instrument to companies together with consulting services, retire early, buy a yacht and watch the sunset while you acknowledge that sometimes the world is a really stupid place.
Nice.
Until I get that off the ground though, I guess I'll just have to use IQ as a proxy.
It's hard to know. Of course representatives are going to say their school is a meritocracy. I was going by some figures argued by the pro affirmative action side of the recent debate over the huge lawsuit against Harvard. I don't recall precisely but the percentage of people juiced into the Ivies was surprising even to me. And if people are still getting in that way then Yale is going to partake more than its share.
I wasn't referring to college reps. I was referring to high school guidance counselors. I am extremely familiar with the lawsuit you are referring to. It's interesting. They don't have to prove that legacy admissions were a huge factor. They just have to show that the schools were following procedures that took them outside of an antitrust exemption that they were relying on.
Political preference (probably) has enough randomness vs intelligence for the law of large numbers to kick in and save us. This doesn't mean the intelligence distributions are identical, just that the median is the same. It still could be true (likely?) that people with >130 IQs are 5x more likely to prefer Harris to Trump.
In my experience 130s fall for fallacious arguments that 150s don't. Nor are they good at crafting arguments that are both correct and that 120s can easily understand.
Do you know the IQs of a lot of people with whom you interact? I don't know the exact IQ of any of my friends or acquaintances. For that matter, I don't know my own IQ.
Political preference (probably) has enough randomness vs intelligence for the law of large numbers to kick in and save us. This doesn't mean the intelligence distributions are identical, just that the median is the same. It still could be true (likely?) that people with >130 IQs are 5x more likely to prefer Harris to Trump.
He was suggesting how you could create a group that has above population average IQ, in response to your post that it would be hard to select 60 million people whose average IQ is not 100. I don't think he was talking about politics.
To change the subject slightly, there is a good reason why it tends to be better if the president's IQ is higher than just above average even though he has "experts" advising him on complex subjects. Because his experts often disagree. And even though the president won't know as much about the subject as any of them, if his IQ is high, he is more likely to identify any logical fallacy that one or more of those experts might invoke (because they are knowledgeable but not necessarily smart) leadin
Do we actually know the IQ score of any recent presidents? I'm sure that Trump has claimed to have a 200 IQ at some point, but aside from that obvious lie, I can't even imagine a U.S. president referring to his IQ score.
Do you believe that poor decisions by U.S. presidents typically (or often) are the result of the president failing to spot a logical fallacy? For example, do you believe that W invaded Iraq because he failed to spot a logical fallacy? Do you believe that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky because he failed to spot a logical fallacy? Do you believe that Clinton lied under oath because he failed to spot a logical fallacy?
He was suggesting how you could create a group that has above population average IQ, in response to your post that it would be hard to select 60 million people whose average IQ is not 100. I don't think he was talking about politics.
I know. Obviously it's super easy to get a large population of people over 6'3 if simply select for height or parents height or NBA experience. I meant "hard" as in it won't happen naturally without just doing it by hand.
Do we actually know the IQ score of any recent presidents? I'm sure that Trump has claimed to have a 200 IQ at some point, but aside from that obvious lie, I can't even imagine a U.S. president referring to his IQ score.
Do you believe that poor decisions by U.S. presidents typically (or often) are the result of the president failing to spot a logical fallacy? For example, do you believe that W invaded Iraq because he failed to spot a logical fallacy? Do you believe that Bill Clinton had an af
Under the (fairly uncontroversial) assumption that higher intelligence leads to better decision making, and the (not controversial for me and others, perhaps for you) assumption that IQ is a good proxy of intelligence, we are always still talking about the ability of achieving goals you decided and think benefit you (and the people you care about), not any other kind of judgement about your actions.
The Iraq war was absolutely a bonanza for the people who decided to initiate it. Personally, for their friends, political allies and so on. Can't use that as an example of bad decision making at all.
Jan 6 was damaging to Trump in various ways though , and that can very well be used to claim he lacked in strategic thinking when he delayed the clear call for non violence he made a tad too late. He should have expected democrats and their media companies would have gone allin on that even if many people don't think he caused jan 6 rioting, there was enough to build a narrative that he did.
As for Harris, if she had come out activating the 25th many months ago she would be in a much stronger position to win currently, as incumbent president.
Do we actually know the IQ score of any recent presidents? I'm sure that Trump has claimed to have a 200 IQ at some point, but aside from that obvious lie, I can't even imagine a U.S. president referring to his IQ score.
Do you believe that poor decisions by U.S. presidents typically (or often) are the result of the president failing to spot a logical fallacy? For example, do you believe that W invaded Iraq because he failed to spot a logical fallacy? Do you believe that Bill Clinton had an af
The Sienna college historian survey Presidential rankings includes intelligence as one of the criteria to rank. It matches up with what I think most would guess intuitively. Trump is the lowest of all time, and unless we got any survivors that lived through from the Harding administration, W Bush is the 2nd lowest any of us have witnessed. Obviously they are just asking historians, so it can't be taken that seriously.
Do you know the IQs of a lot of people with whom you interact? I don't know the exact IQ of any of my friends or acquaintances. For that matter, I don't know my own IQ.
You can get a pretty good grasp of Verbal IQ just by talking with people.
You can still risk missing the "high verbal IQ, low IQ elsewhere" people, which exist, but even when you split IQ into components there are very strong correlations between the components.
If you then talk about something quantitative, numerical as well you get a grasp of the other big part, so you can differentiate the "decent verbal IQ , bad at numbers" people from the "actually intelligent across the board" people.
It's easy, actually smart people don't mess up orders of magnitude of the size of problems even when talking casually (the millions/billions mess up, the "Musk could have solved poverty worldwide with what he paid for twitter" and so on), they can do percentages intuitively and so on.
If you ever have a check with a tip to pay you can easily gauge the IQ of people around you by discussing it, like throw a wrong percentage and if the other person is actually smart he obviously pick it up and corrects you.
Like say the check is for 150, you go with , hey we should only tip 10% it would be 50 bucks already, i think it's enough for service. Answers will tell you the IQ of the people who just ate with you
Wait, you've eaten dinner with people who can't work out 10% of 150?
Btw, pro tip for quickly working out percentages - x% of y is the same as y% of x, so while 8% of 25 might not be immediately obvious, 25% of 8 is.
Hmm... might be a gap in the market there. d2's very own CMQ (certifiable moron quotient) test, coming to an annoying pop-up near you soon!
I dont think there is a gap in the market. I think there is willful ignorance for social/political reasons. There is a fair amount of scholarship and data that our society has decided isn't all that important to focus on.
And maybe our society is right. Countries like India and China are more directed and precise about seeking out "smart" people for specific reasons, and it isn't obvious they are getting more bang for their buck by doing this.
I think the US model of generally free markets with freedom of opportunity where people have the ability to sort themselves according to their aptitude and interests has worked extremely well; which is why I think we should be very reticent to push socialist/central planning/DEI/AA concepts that have shown themselves repeatedly to give inferior results.
I had no idea such people existed tbh, I thought all adults knew how to multiply and divide by powers of 10. Where are you finding them?
Marriages, relatives of spouse, school things mainly.
I gave you the tip example in this thread because of many american users but i actually do the discount thing which is a tad harder for people (these shoes were 120 but with 20% discount i felt at 70 were a steal, kind of thing) , as we don't have tips in the american sense here.
Marriages, relatives of spouse, school things mainly.
I gave you the tip example in this thread because of many american users but i actually do the discount thing which is a tad harder for people (these shoes were 120 but with 20% discount i felt at 70 were a steal, kind of thing) , as we don't have tips in the american sense here.
Ok, I mean, I'm pretty sure everyone I know IRL can do basic percentages like 10, 25 and 50 of round numbers (and anything else is just a test of mental arithmetic), so I don't think your clever IQ testing method is going to work for me.
Seriously, how do you know someone who can't divide 150 by 10? And more than one of these people to boot? I think you're trolling.
