you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Isidend 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I don't think the way IQ tests are done accurately measure intelligence. Doesn't mean that they aren't other ways to measure intelligence accurately.

There is zero evidence to show that there is more violence, sexual or otherwise, on college campuses vs the rest of society.

Of course there is A LOT OF evidence pointing towards this. Like the fact that school itself isn't voluntary is already a VERY BIG act of violence towards all these students. Pressure by parents: violent parenting and pressure by brothers and sisters, If you dare questioning whether school is good or if you don't give a f*ck about grades, "you're gonna be in trouble!"

The fact that there is zero consequences for people collaborating with this kind of violence prove that no one give a fuck about violence on campuses.

That's like trying to argue that there is no rape in indoctrination camps. You can't.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What you described is not even violence. And college is absolutely not mandatory.

I don't think you have any clue how IQ tests are actually done. The very fact that IQ tests can make accurate predictions like grades, life expectancy, and lifetime wealth attainment proves that they are accurate.

You could make the argument that Q is a better measure if intelligence, but there is not as much testing done with it because of the suppression of intelligence testing by academia.

It makes accurate predictions and that proves it works. Claiming otherwise is denying science.

[–]Isidend 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

When I said that It was mandatory, I meant that the earlier school days were literally mandatory (and thus violence. Public education system = violence) and at the point you're going to college, parents will be likely to pressure the decision, anyway.

Secondly, learning in college is an inefficient way of doing it, most of the times but I don't want to go into too much detail for this point.

It makes accurate predictions and that proves it works. Claiming otherwise is denying science.

Wealth, grades and life expectancy have nothing to do with intelligence.

Grades have more to do with obedience/compliance, wealth really depends on where you start and HOW you acquire it and life expectancy depends more of the lifestyle.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Wealth, grades and life expectancy have nothing to do with intelligence.

So it is just a coincidence the more intelligent people get better grades, live longer, and accumulate more wealth on average?

Seriously my guy, your brainwashing is next level if you believe that.

I am not talking about the bullshit grade your English teacher gives you, I am talking about the objective results of standardized testing. You either know how to do the math problem or you don't.

Intelligent people make better lifestyle choices. They also know how to take care of themselves better when their body begins to break down with age. They don't fall for the bullshit treatment scams like vitamins that cure cancer. Instead they research their condition and find the best treatment.

And wealth is pretty fucking obvious to anyone not stupid enough to gobble down the entire leftist dick and balls narrative of "muh everything is power and oppression"

[–]Isidend 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think this is more of a semantics problem. What I meant was: I don't think (thinking) skill between activities translate well at all. You may be able to solve complex maths problems, but be a terrible connect four/checkers/chess players after 3 years of serious training.

So your definition of "intelligence" is probably already dubious in the first place. Intelligence is the ability to understand concepts (vary a lot depending on what is studied: some people can't understand maths but find science easy to understand), to learn (same thing), reasoning/problem-solving/planning/creativity etc (always the same thing)

So the fact that you may find a "number" to measure intelligence "in most fields) is a dubious concept at best.

Sure for people who have 8000 IQ, nooo shit they're smart thanks sherlock. But for people who have a way lower than average IQ it's extremely misleading and doesn't mean anything. It also doesn't reflect anything when someone is close to the average.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think (thinking) skill between activities translate well at all.

Well guess what, actual science has proven you wrong. Studies show that there is a lot of overlap in technical fields. The only thing that has not been linked are made up "intelligences" like emotional intelligence which was only invented to obfuscate the fact that some people are smarter than others. Also you are conflating skills and intelligence. Or to be more precise skills and IQ.

IQ is a very specific measurement of the ability to solve problems. It is conceptually very similar to understanding things, as you put it. However, the way you put it is vague and doesn't have a concrete meaning. However, solving problems is easily definable. You can either figure out the puzzle or not, and you either do it fast or slow. That is what IQ is.

Someone with a high IQ will "figure out" math or science or whatever else faster than someone with a lower IQ. Very reliably. That does not mean that they are born with the ability to do "difficult math" and as such testing people using math problems does not reveal their IQ. However, when you test apples to apples, for example 10th graders, you find that higher IQ translates to better math, science, and reading comprehension scores.

So no, IQ does not vary depending on what you studied. Your understanding of a particular subject will, but you can't derive IQ from testing a subject. IQ test do not have any questions in them that require knowledge of any subject.

some people can't understand math but find science easy to understand

This is not something that is scientifically proven. People have preferences but the actual studies show the opposite of what you are claiming. They show that on average if you are good at math then you are good at science. This is the perfect example of "if it supports my argument I don't need evidence". People's feelings about how well they do, and the social narrative of everyone has a thing they are good at, is not science.

It also doesn't reflect anything when someone is close to the average.

first of all IQ is generally measured from 50 to 150. Second, you need to stop with these baseless claims you are pulling out of your ass. IQ has been scientifically shown to be able to make predictions. Obviously there is some variability, but when you measure groups of people it is the most accurate measure of test scores of anything ever tested including wealth, parental education, or any other excuse liberals use to explain discrepancies. It beats all of them hands down; literally by an order of magnitude. You need to stop denying reality.

[–]Isidend 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Studies show that there is a lot of overlap in technical fields.

You have a lot of things to explain, then! Like the fact that some people are able to memorize entire deck of cards, but have a poor memory in real life (can't forget where they put their keys!). People learn by chunks in their fields, but most of the time, once they encounter a scenario that's too unfamiliar they are completely lost. I mean It's obvious and It's normal (eg: memorizing random letters vs memorizing complete sentences).

Another thing you seem to forget is that the brain is a lot less powerful to solve and remember boring things. If the IQ test is boring (it will probably be), I'd probably struggle a lot more, than saying studying/solving something interesting.

They show that on average if you are good at math then you are good at science.

Heh, then a lot of people I know are the exception too. Good to know. But again, you're excluding the fact you'll perform worse at things that don't interest you. I'm really curious by what you mean by "on average"...

Obviously there is some variability, but when you measure groups of people it is the most accurate measure of test scores of anything ever tested including wealth, parental education

Then IQ is really inaccurate or everyone must score terribly in this aspect. Seeing how parental education is in a terrible state right now, every parent forcing their kids to go to school and don't hesitate to become the number 1 enemy of their own child... If the only people scoring high aren't unschoolers, I consider your metric VERY inaccurate for this aspect.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Memorization is not IQ. None of what you said changes anything, it is not relavant. You don't get to say that dozens of studies that show people with high IQ do better in school, earn more over a lifetime, and live longer is all disproved because some low IQ guy can memorize cards. This logic is insane.

Parental education means the educational attainment of your parents. As in: hs diploma, graduate degree, master, or doctorate. I can't even tell what you seem to think it means with that rant at the end, but you should see a therapist and try to fix your relationship with your parents.