Equity and a whole lot more.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Copper said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
People with a high IQ tend to be smart about most things
People with a low IQ tend to not be smart about most things.
Of course the exceptions stick out like sore thumbs and get attention.
I work on the second floor of a building which has the first floor almost entirely inhabited by people with engineering and science PhD's with a few Master's degrees thrown in. Based on my own personal observations, I would question all of these statements except for the last one.
There's a massive overlap between high IQ individuals and individuals who have a crippling lack of self-awareness.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
There's a massive overlap between high IQ individuals and individuals who have a crippling lack of self-awareness.
Quite possibly true, but that's not where I was coming from. Very highly qualified science/math types will inevitably tend to have high IQ's based on the types of questions prevalent in IQ tests. They also don't necessarily make good/smart decisions on some day-to-day activities, despite their brilliance elsewhere. For example, the inability to easily tell the difference between walking through the door, and attempting to leave the room via the broom cupboard.
Sure, their absent-mindedness could be because they're thinking about more important things. Still....
-
If IQ was negatively correlated with other sufficiently important things that impact chances of measurable success, then IQ wouldn't be positively correlated with measurable success. These conversations inevitably devolve to anecdote, which in turn inevitably are making fun of "smart" people.
Education is extremely important.
-
https://www.tamdistrict.org/cms/lib/CA01000875/Centricity/Domain/539/Presidential IQ scores 1.pdf
3 are missing from the above, here are estimates from elsewhere
https://www.ranker.com/list/us-presidents-by-iq/lauren-slocum
Trump 145
Obama 155https://iqtestprep.com/joe-bidens-iq-score/
Biden 115
-
I've estimated my IQ as being about 175, which explains why I'll never be President.
-
If IQ was negatively correlated with other sufficiently important things that impact chances of measurable success, then IQ wouldn't be positively correlated with measurable success. These conversations inevitably devolve to anecdote, which in turn inevitably are making fun of "smart" people.
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
If IQ was negatively correlated with other sufficiently important things that impact chances of measurable success, then IQ wouldn't be positively correlated with measurable success. These conversations inevitably devolve to anecdote, which in turn inevitably are making fun of "smart" people.
I suppose guidance counselors, career coaches, performance reviews, and top 10 employment articles the world over are in on the woke conspiracy to emphasize soft skills. Because everyone knows if you have no self awareness or are a total bastard, the world still just gives you things if you show them your Mensa card.
There are indeed negative correlations with high IQ in terms of measurable success. For starters, there's a threshold at which IQ differences start to create a communication problem for those with the higher IQ.
-
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
If IQ was negatively correlated with other sufficiently important things that impact chances of measurable success, then IQ wouldn't be positively correlated with measurable success. These conversations inevitably devolve to anecdote, which in turn inevitably are making fun of "smart" people.
I suppose guidance counselors, career coaches, performance reviews, and top 10 employment articles the world over are in on the woke conspiracy to emphasize soft skills. Because everyone knows if you have no self awareness or are a total bastard, the world still just gives you things if you show them your Mensa card.
There are indeed negative correlations with high IQ in terms of measurable success. For starters, there's a threshold at which IQ differences start to create a communication problem for those with the higher IQ.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
If IQ was negatively correlated with other sufficiently important things that impact chances of measurable success, then IQ wouldn't be positively correlated with measurable success. These conversations inevitably devolve to anecdote, which in turn inevitably are making fun of "smart" people.
I suppose guidance counselors, career coaches, performance reviews, and top 10 employment articles the world over are in on the woke conspiracy to emphasize soft skills. Because everyone knows if you have no self awareness or are a total bastard, the world still just gives you things if you show them your Mensa card.
There are indeed negative correlations with high IQ in terms of measurable success. For starters, there's a threshold at which IQ differences start to create a communication problem for those with the higher IQ.
Well you continue to argue against the idea that IQ explains everything, but that's an idea nobody holds.
It makes perfect sense to concentrate on improving skills that one can train and improve. I have no issue with those conspirators emphasizing the development of things other than IQ.
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what. We third rail it, and substitute politically expedient (and leftist/marxist) explanations for the differences that by all data, it can be demonstrated to account for.
Education is extremely important.
-
There's a simple analogy that gets to the point about why IQ matters to group differences, and why it's not everything. If measurable success is the sum of 10 dice, and one of those 10 dice is loaded to produce a higher result for one group as compared to another, then the sum of the 10 dice will be different on average for one group than the other. The other nine dice can freely roll around as dice do. Any individual sum can't be counted on to be higher in one group than the other. But if we care deeply about average differences, which are inevitable in the presence of a loaded die, then we should care about that loaded die, and we should care about being honest about why it's loaded. Especially when the dishonest explanations are socially destructive.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
If IQ was negatively correlated with other sufficiently important things that impact chances of measurable success, then IQ wouldn't be positively correlated with measurable success. These conversations inevitably devolve to anecdote, which in turn inevitably are making fun of "smart" people.
I suppose guidance counselors, career coaches, performance reviews, and top 10 employment articles the world over are in on the woke conspiracy to emphasize soft skills. Because everyone knows if you have no self awareness or are a total bastard, the world still just gives you things if you show them your Mensa card.
There are indeed negative correlations with high IQ in terms of measurable success. For starters, there's a threshold at which IQ differences start to create a communication problem for those with the higher IQ.
Well you continue to argue against the idea that IQ explains everything, but that's an idea nobody holds.
It makes perfect sense to concentrate on improving skills that one can train and improve. I have no issue with those conspirators emphasizing the development of things other than IQ.
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what. We third rail it, and substitute politically expedient (and leftist/marxist) explanations for the differences that by all data, it can be demonstrated to account for.
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what.
I don't think we will, actually. AI's only a few years out from making this problem irrelevant by comparison.
-
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what.
I don't think we will, actually. AI's only a few years out from making this problem irrelevant by comparison.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what.
I don't think we will, actually. AI's only a few years out from making this problem irrelevant by comparison.
As long as there is a semblance of freedom and social mobility, the smarter people will figure out a way to get ahead in that culture, too. Because I doubt even social skills are negatively correlated with IQ.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what.
I don't think we will, actually. AI's only a few years out from making this problem irrelevant by comparison.
As long as there is a semblance of freedom and social mobility, the smarter people will figure out a way to get ahead in that culture, too. Because I doubt even social skills are negatively correlated with IQ.
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
@Horace said in Equity and a whole lot more.:
One of the reasons IQ is so third rail, is that we've long since established that it's not trainable. So then what, if it remains so important statistically, and if it remains different between groups we care about? Well, we see then what.
I don't think we will, actually. AI's only a few years out from making this problem irrelevant by comparison.
As long as there is a semblance of freedom and social mobility
Based on the trajectory of the technology and our total incompetence when it comes to planning for that, I'm not at all convinced there will be.
-
I found it impressive enough to try listening to Lindsay’s podcast. It was supposed to be about how to attack the movement, but the first 20 minutes were a very bad attempt at trying to explain the Chinese 5 Element Cycle of Creation and Consumption. It went downhill from there. I will try a different podcast and listen to some of his other interviews and debates. But I was EXTREMELY impressed with his citations and the logical and clearly educated and well thought out description of woke idealogy. It reminds me of the Peterson video discussing the Disney executive and deconstruction of the trans movement. Those arguments are the ones we need to get out to the world.
He has a very well-done dictionary of wokeness called New Discourses: Translations from the Wokish. New Discourses is a good follow on twitter (much better than James himself, whom I unfollowed a few years ago).
The entire dictionary is available on newdoscourses.com.
Random sample entry here:
-
You know the best way to increase your IQ?
Do lots of IQ tests. D’uh.
Probably not the best route to being more successful, however.
