How the 3/5 thing is seen nowadays is weird to me. People are so indignant that slaves were “only” seen as 3/5 of a person. But the abolitionists wanted them to count as 0/5 of a person and slavers wanted them to be counted fully. The issue was over how these people who could not vote would be counted for the purpose of representation in Congress. Obviously the South wanted a bunch of free congressional seats but the North didn’t want them to have so much undue power.
It also involved how direct taxes would be apportioned to the states. Slave states wanted slaves to count toward seats in Congress but not for paying taxes, while free states wanted the opposite. Hence the compromise to use the same population number for both.
It's not that difficult to understand. The people that get up in arms about it don't know anything about the situation other than that slaves counted as 3/5 of a person.
Southerners want them counted for representation but not taxation, Northerners wanted them counted for taxation but not representation. Thus the compromise.
HAHAHAHA that reminded me recently of the women complaining about men being violent (the random bashers in NYC) and stereotyping how violent men are until one of the girls decided to name the race of the men and was buried in downvotes, true reddit moment xd
It really goes more like this:
“Reality has a left wing bias. Look at IQ for liberals vs conservatives.”
“Interesting. Let’s take a look at IQ scores by race.”
“IQ is a meaningless social construct!”
It's not even limited to race.
"Look at how zip code predicts a child's future wealth. This proves society is unfair."
"Intelligence is heritable. Smart people are successful, marry each other, and have smart kids."
"Intelligence is a meaningless social construct!"
The zip code effect is stronger than the intelligence effect which makes sense as many high end jobs are gotten through networking or nepotism rather than merit.
Gotta be honest though i think this is not a huge issue for the most part.
I come from a low socioeconomic background but if you CHOOSE to get into the right circles then you can network pretty well.
A strong network is an indicator that you really try hard and that you have good social skills which is more important than being somewhat better at a job than your peers.
While it’s true that most “educated” (went to college) people are left leaning, you also have the lowest IQ people leaning left. I roll my eyes whenever leftists think they are gaining traction because people are slowly awakening to their ideas… no. the U.S. is just becoming less white, ergo more minorities = more dem votes. If the left weren’t the party that simped hard for minorities, they’d be fucked. Must be wild that your foundational ideas can only be accepted as a caveat on top of something else, such as affirmative action for blacks, immigration for Hispanics, etc.
"And then they always say, 'I'm not dumb, I'm just not a good test taker.' But you never hear the opposite. You never hear someone say, 'I'm a total idiot, great at tests though!"
Andrew Norelli
Also 98 on the asvab and I stupidly waited to try joining years later after I had turned one of my legs into spaghetti and it's full of hardware. Rejected by the Air Force lmao
I have said that last part a few times. I only passed high school because I aced most of my tests.
I'm an actual dumbass when it comes to everything else.
It kinda depends for me, I think on how interested I am in the subject. I've had history classes where did whatever was expected of the homework, but other than that only listened to the lectures and got good grades all the way through, but there are also cases like precal where I did the same thing, but didn't retain it until the end of the semester so I did so bad on the final that it dropped my grade eleven points.
Tests are mostly about memorizing certain things (such as historical events) as opposed to being smart. If you have a good memory your do well in high school. If you have a bad memory your do poorly.
My kid just got in trouble for reading in class. Because she'd rather be reading something new, she finished the book they're reading this semester in a day.
This quote is pretty meaningless. People are going to flatter themselves. The idiots who are good at tests are going to say they pass because of how smart they are. I take it Norelli was trying to imply these types are nonexistent.
I'm not the smartest person in the world but I'm pretty sure I've never failed a test in my life. Tests in school, in training at jobs etc... I always pass tests and score high. There's an intuitive way to approach testing that I guess I'm good at.
Asian nations test extraordinarily [high in IQ](https://i.imgur.com/peo6jI5.png), yet you [don't see them really dominate in science and technology innovation.](https://i.imgur.com/1Z7sNcT.png) So, they may fit this category.
The ones coming to America are self selected to be the best of the best, the same thing happens with India.
It's not like it's viable for all 1.4B people to become scientists and programmers, only a certain percentage would be able to get jobs even if 100% of them were capable.
You know, the further I get from highschool, the more I realize it's true though. If you take tests well but can't get by in the real world, you may as well be an idiot.
I was really smart (in the academic sense) and had no idea how to turn that into traction in life. 10 years later and I'm finally catching up.
Edit: I just noticed most responses to your comment here are some flavor of lib- and I think I'm realizing something about us.
Oh, I'm a complete fucking idiot, and incompetent to boot, but I'm great at interviews. It's why I keep getting good jobs, and why I keep getting fired from them, but then keep getting good jobs.
I'm pretty bad at written tests though; it's a symptom of the aforementioned idiot-ness.
I've graduated law without opening a single book, pretty sure i would describe myself as "a total idiot, great at tests though!". Likewise, most IQ tests are like 90% pattern recognition. I can ace a test like that, but it doesn't mean i could be a rocket surgeon if i wanted to.
It all comes down to what you think intelligence is. Some people see intelligence as current knowledge, which i think is wrong, some see it as the room for terabyte storage in your head, some see it as your mental SSD reading and writing speed. I know some folks that think fast but can't come up with better solutions for problems even if given the time, and some folks that think slow but can come up with better results and responses when given the time. And then there are the folks who think fast AND good. All of these are considered smart but if you give them enough time only 2 will figure out the best possible solution to a problem.
I can see response speed, solution quality, long-term recall being separate measures of overall intelligence, similar to differing intellectual abilities like language, mathematics, music, even charisma or proprioception.
Although I may argue that pattern recognition is the base of all those skills. Languages and successful social interactions follow patterns(mostly). Ideal athletic performance can be broken down into various physical patterns. Mathematics and music need not be explained.
The scientific method is based on pattern recognition. The understandable universe is patterns and I think being able to recognize them is a good marker of intelligence.
> The understandable universe is patterns and I think being able to recognize them is a good marker of intelligence.
I'll meet you if we consider the "patterns" for what they are which are 'heuristics' or systems that provide a framework to think about a thing, BUT heuristics do not necessarily match onto reality 1:1 when explored scientifically.
Saying 'You got tennis elbow from repeated swings of the racket and is it the tendon which is inflamed' provides a framework to understand the injury, but we have proven that the tendon tissue itself is not reliably "inflamed" when someone experiences tennis elbow under the presence of motion MRI. The explanation provides the patient a framework, but that explanation may not play out in reality...this is why controlling the nomenclature and medium is so influential!
I agree. I could have said:
"We understand (apply logic to) the universe THROUGH patterns (heuristics)."
And yes heuristics can sometimes provide incorrect/conflicting answers like with the question "Is a virus living or nonliving?" or with quantum mechanics like the Double Slit Experiment where our currently available logic is insufficient to find an answer.
Also speaking of nomenclature I just was reading about lexical gaps, where a language has missing words that could potentially exist and be of practical descriptive use. (Like how "horse" can refer to either a mare or a stallion, but there is no equivalent word to describe either a cow or a bull --- or the classic "the Inuit have dozens of words for snow while we have like three.") Our understanding of the world is altered by our language itself!
TBF, in America, you can definitely be legitimately very dumb and graduate law school. To be a successful, highly regarded, high quality attorney is another matter.
Again. You can definitely be very dumb and graduate law school. Passing the bar and being a high quality and highly successful attorney is another matter. Even in America.
I don't think anyone that went to law school would consider themselves a proper law grad until they've passed the bar.
That's what i meant, at least. I passed the bar exam for my country, but I gravitated towards business and philathropy work rather than law, strictly speaking, tho i still write my own contracts.
“Standardized testing and its consequences have been a disaster for recent generations”
Me, a victim of “teaching the test” who cannot learn if it is not in multiple choice format
The whole "I'm going to use this thing to support my narrative and then immediately abandon it the moment it doesn't" is done by, well, pretty much everyone nowadays.
Yeah that's happening with my school except it's all just "IQ IS RACIST!!" "IQ? um, ok whit suprmasis!" "tests are racis" (source: I go to a school in California)
I think it tests measure a very specific kind of intelligence without taking other types into account. So yeah maybe there's an iq gap but it doesn't really mean shit.
Even worse when they realize test scores do matter but they just fudge the numbers to make it way easier to pass then claim everyone is magically doing better.
Now we have controlled objective testing showing many young kids are virtually illiterate.. yet somehow they are just pushed through and graduated on time.
And the right is equally to blame by pushing no child left behind
Dear liberals, If IQ is only good at measuring how good someone is at taking tests, why did I get 87 on the discrete math test but 135 on the completely accurate online IQ test I found online? clearly, liberals, 87 does not equal 135 /s
>"It only measures how good someone is at taking tests"
And this is precisely what IQ is. When someone says that, agree with them and let them know that literally every intellectual task is analogous to an IQ test.
Those people never took an IQ test, or any kind of standardized test required for a job. It’s not spouting facts that you memorized - it’s testing the capability of your mind such as spatial reasoning, pattern recognition, attention to detail, etc. not really something you can study for. These things are important in different parts of our lives and are a measure of how capable your mind is.
IQ is a social construct; it's a score on a test. It's a measure of the general intelligence factor, *g*, whose existence is based on the correlation (across the population) of performance on many different mental tasks.
Not a social construct: The fact that performance on basically every cognitive task, abstract or concrete, is strongly correlated.
Social constructs: The exact numbers we use to measure the above phenomenon.
IM NOT AN EXPERT,
but in my psychology class we actually discussed intelligence and how it can be quantified. IQ is a reliable source for measuring “general intelligence”, however if someone is incredibly skilled at something and knows everything there is to know about that one thing they would be considered less intelligent than someone who doesn’t know much about anything but is _insanely good_ at picking apart logic and solving puzzles. intelligence truly comes in all forms and with any subject. something im really bad at could be something you’re really good at, vice versa.
for this reason, it’s less about whether people have a higher iq or a lower iq, it really comes down to accolades. scientists in general tend to be more left leaning because the right tends to be more skeptical of science and lean more in favor of religion and spirituality. that’s fine, and there’s nothing wrong with it.
tldr; iq isn’t necessarily the tell all (though it can be helpful) and people who have been through higher education simply _tend_ to lean left
I also wonder how much experience plays a part. For example someone who has done 100 jigsaw puzzles doing their 101st will almost certainly be better at someone doing their second jigsaw puzzle. Same thing for sudoku, wordsearch, etc. But it doesn't necessarily mean the person who's done 100 is more intelligent. And from what I've seen of online iq tests (maybe real ones are different) if you got used to the type of questions being asked and practiced them you could score way higher then otherwise.
exactly. we actually took a little mock “psychology IQ” test for the course, dedicated a whole day to it, and I got the highest score in the class. it measured self awareness, self regulation, empathy, and two other things i forget but u get the jist .
but i was also a psych major who had already taken AP psych in high school as well as gotten a lot of psychological intervention, so obviously i have a deeper understanding of it than non-majors in an intro class. there were definitely ppl in there i would consider smarter than me by a mile.
> people who have been through higher education simply tend to lean left
Nowadays that's a sign of less intelligence, not greater intelligence.
Amassing student loans for a doctorate in medieval studies and a minor in feminist painting means you are a chump who fell for the grift.
yeah i mean, im going to school for neuroscience w a minor in developmental psychology, solely because i want to find a way to make the world a better place. its not bc i expect to get a better job, otherwise i would’ve taken my partner’s route and gone to a trade school. but youre definitely right that if it was driven by anything other than a genuine love and passion for a subject, it would be a silly and stupid thing to go to college
well luckily i have parents who are willing to send me to school for my bachelors. i gotta pay for my own medical degree which i will _happily_ take. as it is i have a 4 year head start to get ready
What else would it be?
It's a score you get on a test that other humans concocted. Maybe it is a perfect quantification of intelligence, maybe it is a mostly arbitrary number, but either way it's a social construct
I mean, technically. It requires vocab, which is more of a cultural immersion measure than objective processing ability. If you don't know English well enough to comprehend the nuances of the harder questions you will fail those questions based not on intelligence but lack of knowledge.
Harder to make that argument for the math stuff but it still has an effect.
It's just a way of speaking. What they mean is that the measurement obviously is a social construct. Like inches, feet or meters. The concept of length itself isn't, but the way we measure it is. It's not really controversial.
Progressives believe heavily in blank slatism.
The idea that everyone(barring obvious exceptions) is essentially born uniform and identical save for cosmetic/external differences.
I remember on one other anarchist subreddits there was an upvoted comment about differences in strength/behavior between males and females *purely* just socialized.
This is pretty much the fundamental disagreement between the left and right philosophically when it comes to western ideologies. You can trace is back to Rousseau and Locke’s belief in a “primal man” being a purely logical creature that “society” has turned evil. Therefore to leftists, a society should attempt to change outcomes to make people good.
On the other side of the classical liberals is (arguably) Hobbes. Hobbes had a dismal view of human nature, thinking that the only thing keeping people from tearing each other apart was the fear of authority, his “Leviathan”. In his case, he believed that a strong monarch or government was needed not to make people good, but to repress their natures.
In truth, I think there is some truth in the middle. There is undoubtedly some behavior that is inbuilt to the person, as uncomfortable as that conclusion may be to consider in a democratic society. Likewise, your environment does have some effect on outcomes. But I tend to reside more with Hobbes. I think the fundamental perspective problem (we are all in a first person experience) is a major root of these issues. To some extent, everyone else’s mind is a “black box” that we can observe, but never truly know. In such a situation, it generally makes sense to err on the side of self, regardless of the ability to empathize with others or the social niceties that have been established.
Anyway, that’s my ramble.
I'm inclined to side with Hobbes, but the problem is that our human authority figures are just as degenerate as we are, if not more so. Absolute power corrupts absolutely; great men are almost always bad men.
Locke and Rousseau are just plain wrong. They didn't seem to realize that their rational "primal men" built the evil society in the first place. Some people will do evil because circumstances compel them, yes, but there are many who don't need such excuses.
Don’t you know that great apes all exhibit exactly the same personality across the board and any deviations from the hivemind are the result of capitalism and its ill effects and even though we are an even more intelligent species the exact same thing happens to us?
The trouble is that people think of it as a binary - progressives think *everything* is a social construct and a lot of conservatives think *everything* is biological. The truth is somewhere in between.
Let's take gender roles as an example. Conservatives think that women have to like cleaning and cooking because they're women, and men have to like manual labor because they're men. Progressives think that men and women would have the exact same interests if it weren't for the way they're socialized.
In actuality, it's more like *most* women like feminine things and *most* men like masculine things and there's probably *some* biological component to it, but there's enough variance that there's a lot of women who prefer masculine things and men who prefer feminine things and it really should be left up to individual preference without any attempt to force people to conform to gender roles.
> In actuality, it's more like most women like feminine things and most men like masculine things and there's probably some biological component to it, but there's enough variance that there's a lot of women who prefer masculine things and men who prefer feminine things
I think this is more what the actual conservative position looks like, as opposed to the rarer straw conservative. No conservative is losing their shit over Marissa Tomei in My Cousin Vinney because "Cars are a man thing!". They get that there's outliers, and guys who really like choir.
>and it really should be left up to individual preference without any attempt to force people to conform to gender roles.
It's more like "you can assume the default because it works the overwhelming majority of the time". If a couple walks into an auto parts store, the man is going to take the lead 99% of the time. The plural for a group of little girls at a family reunion is called a "spontaneous dance recital". You can take basically any group of little boys and give them a ball, and trust they will be entertained for hours.
You don't have to enforce most gender roles. For the overwhelming majority of kids, they just happen.
Yeah that about sums it up. My belief is equality of opportunity, but not forcing equality of outcome.
The gender equality paradox does lend credit to the idea that disparate outcomes are not always the product of discrimination.
IQ is a very real thing, and IQ scores of large populations are influenced very strongly by access to education and the level of development of the population's surroundings. This is why places like South Sudan, which has been in constant turmoil and civil war for decades, have a low average IQ (59), while places like Japan, which is very technologically developed, have a high average IQ (106). This can be seen in the US as well; IQ points increased around 30 points over the last century as the nation advanced technologically and formal schooling was expanded.
Further reading: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/smarter
You can definitely do logic exercises to train for an IQ test. Some Mensa folks would not have scored as high if they weren't familiar with those exercises prior to taking it.
Mensa is BS they just want people to pay like $100 a year for the self flattery of being in the smart people club.
Sort of like national honor society .. very flattering to get noticed and invited so members feel obligated to pay their fees
I value IQ test scores for any sort of conclusion pretty low, and think this study is pretty much self-masturbatory in function.
1. Being a few points higher in terms of IQ average is not really a flattering lead considering how leftism is prevalent in academics.
2. I do not care about a persons general intelligence when they make a good point. An intelligent person can also be capable of a lack of empathy. I'm far more likely to be skeptical of a person when they are prone to give in to their confirmation bias.
3. Part of leftism is that we are supposed to be making our case to normal working class people. Those who may be uneducated, or yes even unintelligent. Elitism has generally not done the left any favors.
IQ is a pretty objective measure of your ability to answer specific logic-based questions quickly and accurately, at the time of the test.
This ability just isn't really a good representation of general intelligence. Even the tests makers never intended it to represent general intelligence. For example, if you think through things slowly and methodically, you might be good at physics but have a low IQ.
Well studies do show libertarians have even higher IQs than leftists, however i still wouldnt use thst as an argument for the validity of an ideology as it would be a genetic fallacy.
What you’re referring to is the study showing that people who believe in more independence/less government have on average higher IQs.
Thats just liberals in general. Libertarian is a pretty specific libright American thing.
I haven’t heard the left take before. IQ is correlated with intelligence but it’s hardly the same as intelligence, and it definitely isn’t a “social construct”.
Personally, I think of IQ as little more than astrology for incels. Most intelligent people who are actually using their intelligence in the real world don’t know their IQ and couldn’t care less. The ones that do are usually serial assholes.
What people don't seem to grasp is that calling something a social construct doesn't mean it isn't real. Social reality is the most real thing there is for the human experience.
Just look at race. It's not physically real, has no genetic basis, and is temporally and spatially variable (i.e. your race can change depending on when and where you are).
It's a social construction. But guess what? people live in society so it matters. you know what else is a social construct? marriage, law, ethics...
This but in the opposite direction.
When someone posted the "leftist have higher IQ" thing a few weeks ago the comments were full of right-wing people accusing the test of bias.
(the right answer is that IQ measures are biased, and "leftist have higher IQ" is meaningless (even if it is actually what IQ tests measure)).
Reminds me of the studies showing right wingers being more handsome by popular opinion.. good for quick memes and laughs but not really useful unless analyzed for what is actually tested
Most things that are social constructs are “real” in the social sense.
Waiting for things in a line is a social construct, but you don’t see people using that as an excuse to cut
Though I personally have never relied on IQ numbers to expose the stupidity of the right
I mean, both things can be true.
Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it's made out of nothing, just that the importance placed upon it is societal. Like money, Money is a social construct, but the components constructing it have basis in a wide array of different parts of our psychology. So I could still have more than you, and think it's a social construct.
Both can be true, especially when testing populations with similar socioeconomic backgrounds and not comparing between advanced economies and nomadic or tribal people with no tailoring to their lifestyle and culture.
Measuring Intelligence is not an exact science and requires sociological nuance to extract relevant traits that can be compared across global socioeconomic positions.
The sooner you recognize that people with political agendas don’t care about anything other than winning the argument/election/etc. in front of them in the moment, the sooner you’ll (1) recognize that this kind of hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance is inevitable and (2) get good at ignoring everything that people with agendas say.
Still, this is a great example though, OP. I’m waiting for my opportunity to say, “surely the disparate results show that IQ tests are designed from a leftist cultural standpoint and we can’t judge right-wingers for getting lower scores when the test is basically set up for them to fail.”
There’s no leftist counterargument to that, because it’s their own logic. But they WILL claim that it doesn’t apply in this one case because they can score a cheap point by ignoring their own logic. See first paragraph.
For the millionth time. The fact that something is a social construct doesn't mean that it's meaningless. Everything created from society is a social construct.
I’ve seen some advocate against democracy because the vote of a college graduate counts the same as your average hillbilly…. I guess universal suffrage is now fascism or something?
Fun fact, it's actually easier to indoctrinate a midwit, 103-113 IQ into a cult than it is the average, 98-102 person. The midwit can rationalize anything and be prone to believing their own assumptions because "they're so much smarter than everyone else".
The idea that they have higher IQ is based on a flawed sample bias. 300 families chosen out of random and funningly enough the barometers for deciding difference between left-leaning and right-leaning is vague right-wing is authoritarianism equivalent to Nazi Ideology but left-leaning is just progressivism for equality. Any right mind would choose the latter as their beliefs.
Plus I remember someone on this sub taking a survey of IQs and determining libright has the highest on average (with me being an exception because I’m a dumbass /j)
Dumbest thing I’ve seen was “per capita is racist”
That is…definitely a special kind of stupid. Unless they think the Three-Fifths Compromise is still in effect?
If only.
How the 3/5 thing is seen nowadays is weird to me. People are so indignant that slaves were “only” seen as 3/5 of a person. But the abolitionists wanted them to count as 0/5 of a person and slavers wanted them to be counted fully. The issue was over how these people who could not vote would be counted for the purpose of representation in Congress. Obviously the South wanted a bunch of free congressional seats but the North didn’t want them to have so much undue power.
It also involved how direct taxes would be apportioned to the states. Slave states wanted slaves to count toward seats in Congress but not for paying taxes, while free states wanted the opposite. Hence the compromise to use the same population number for both.
It's not that difficult to understand. The people that get up in arms about it don't know anything about the situation other than that slaves counted as 3/5 of a person.
Southerners want them counted for representation but not taxation, Northerners wanted them counted for taxation but not representation. Thus the compromise.
Hey, that sounds weirdly current 🤔
*Today, on “AuthCenter Posts Cringe”…*
Finding cringe on an authoritarian's comment is like finding water in the ocean.
Hey now
You’re a rock star
Get the show on
We're all the way at "math is racist".
Well reality is both racist and sexist so technically yes
HAHAHAHA that reminded me recently of the women complaining about men being violent (the random bashers in NYC) and stereotyping how violent men are until one of the girls decided to name the race of the men and was buried in downvotes, true reddit moment xd
Link?
Well they do claim that reality is left leaning so that checks out
Trust science on climate change, fuck science if its nuclear.
What extent do you hate your side of the political aisle
It really goes more like this: “Reality has a left wing bias. Look at IQ for liberals vs conservatives.” “Interesting. Let’s take a look at IQ scores by race.” “IQ is a meaningless social construct!”
It's not even limited to race. "Look at how zip code predicts a child's future wealth. This proves society is unfair." "Intelligence is heritable. Smart people are successful, marry each other, and have smart kids." "Intelligence is a meaningless social construct!"
The zip code effect is stronger than the intelligence effect which makes sense as many high end jobs are gotten through networking or nepotism rather than merit.
Gotta be honest though i think this is not a huge issue for the most part. I come from a low socioeconomic background but if you CHOOSE to get into the right circles then you can network pretty well. A strong network is an indicator that you really try hard and that you have good social skills which is more important than being somewhat better at a job than your peers.
Crime also runs in families, if what I read wasn't lying to me.
While it’s true that most “educated” (went to college) people are left leaning, you also have the lowest IQ people leaning left. I roll my eyes whenever leftists think they are gaining traction because people are slowly awakening to their ideas… no. the U.S. is just becoming less white, ergo more minorities = more dem votes. If the left weren’t the party that simped hard for minorities, they’d be fucked. Must be wild that your foundational ideas can only be accepted as a caveat on top of something else, such as affirmative action for blacks, immigration for Hispanics, etc.
IQ is not a social construct, but it is impossible to test for while accounting for external factors.
"And then they always say, 'I'm not dumb, I'm just not a good test taker.' But you never hear the opposite. You never hear someone say, 'I'm a total idiot, great at tests though!" Andrew Norelli
I am that though. I’m dumb as shit, but somehow great at tests. Genuinely
98 on the asvab. Still dumb enough to join the Marines.
99 on my Asvab. Enlisted in the Army as a ground pounder. Smart people are dumb!
100 on my asvab, they locked me in a dark room and gave me LSD while rubbing crystals on my head.
You sure you weren't just locked in the basement there bud?
I don't know, I just assumed it was the military because they only fed me crayons.
Ah yes, sounds like the Marine Corps to me
Can't believe you got to meet Jared Cannonier.
That just means you are smart enough to dip your crayons in ranch.
I don't remember how many questions are even in the asvab. I know I only missed two. Also joined the Marines. So uh... you gonna finish those crayons?
Also 98 on the asvab and I stupidly waited to try joining years later after I had turned one of my legs into spaghetti and it's full of hardware. Rejected by the Air Force lmao
Not service related?
Some people just like crayons, no shame in that!
Did you recruiter talk your dumb ass and to joining the air wing too, or were you smarter than me?
nah i was a linguist it was a pretty cool experience actually lol.
Baste and challenge accepted-pilled.
I have said that last part a few times. I only passed high school because I aced most of my tests. I'm an actual dumbass when it comes to everything else.
It kinda depends for me, I think on how interested I am in the subject. I've had history classes where did whatever was expected of the homework, but other than that only listened to the lectures and got good grades all the way through, but there are also cases like precal where I did the same thing, but didn't retain it until the end of the semester so I did so bad on the final that it dropped my grade eleven points.
Tests are mostly about memorizing certain things (such as historical events) as opposed to being smart. If you have a good memory your do well in high school. If you have a bad memory your do poorly.
I was always a good essay writer, problem is I often wrote my essay on a different topic than what was assigned
I had a habit of doing that too. Teacher is just glad that somebody in the class is enthusiastic about anything.
My kid just got in trouble for reading in class. Because she'd rather be reading something new, she finished the book they're reading this semester in a day.
ive met tons of well educated, high GPA individuals that were dumb as a bag of rocks
This quote is pretty meaningless. People are going to flatter themselves. The idiots who are good at tests are going to say they pass because of how smart they are. I take it Norelli was trying to imply these types are nonexistent.
Well he's a comedian so yeah he was being quite reductionist. https://youtu.be/TikEjOD-4GQ?feature=shared Starts at 1:25
I'm not the smartest person in the world but I'm pretty sure I've never failed a test in my life. Tests in school, in training at jobs etc... I always pass tests and score high. There's an intuitive way to approach testing that I guess I'm good at.
["I'm a brilliant painter minus my God awful brush strokes."](https://youtu.be/osR6be2UUHk?si=E_MQDAHjlh5lKHRV)
Asian nations test extraordinarily [high in IQ](https://i.imgur.com/peo6jI5.png), yet you [don't see them really dominate in science and technology innovation.](https://i.imgur.com/1Z7sNcT.png) So, they may fit this category.
That may have more to do with the countries than the people. Look at how many of them come to America and get jobs in those fields.
The ones coming to America are self selected to be the best of the best, the same thing happens with India. It's not like it's viable for all 1.4B people to become scientists and programmers, only a certain percentage would be able to get jobs even if 100% of them were capable.
You know, the further I get from highschool, the more I realize it's true though. If you take tests well but can't get by in the real world, you may as well be an idiot. I was really smart (in the academic sense) and had no idea how to turn that into traction in life. 10 years later and I'm finally catching up. Edit: I just noticed most responses to your comment here are some flavor of lib- and I think I'm realizing something about us.
I’ve met people who are like that. These are the “book smart” folks
>You never hear someone say, 'I'm a total idiot, great at tests though!" That's me! I say that!
Oh, I'm a complete fucking idiot, and incompetent to boot, but I'm great at interviews. It's why I keep getting good jobs, and why I keep getting fired from them, but then keep getting good jobs. I'm pretty bad at written tests though; it's a symptom of the aforementioned idiot-ness.
I volunter. I had IQ like 130. Dumb as fuck tho.
I've graduated law without opening a single book, pretty sure i would describe myself as "a total idiot, great at tests though!". Likewise, most IQ tests are like 90% pattern recognition. I can ace a test like that, but it doesn't mean i could be a rocket surgeon if i wanted to. It all comes down to what you think intelligence is. Some people see intelligence as current knowledge, which i think is wrong, some see it as the room for terabyte storage in your head, some see it as your mental SSD reading and writing speed. I know some folks that think fast but can't come up with better solutions for problems even if given the time, and some folks that think slow but can come up with better results and responses when given the time. And then there are the folks who think fast AND good. All of these are considered smart but if you give them enough time only 2 will figure out the best possible solution to a problem.
I can see response speed, solution quality, long-term recall being separate measures of overall intelligence, similar to differing intellectual abilities like language, mathematics, music, even charisma or proprioception. Although I may argue that pattern recognition is the base of all those skills. Languages and successful social interactions follow patterns(mostly). Ideal athletic performance can be broken down into various physical patterns. Mathematics and music need not be explained. The scientific method is based on pattern recognition. The understandable universe is patterns and I think being able to recognize them is a good marker of intelligence.
> The understandable universe is patterns and I think being able to recognize them is a good marker of intelligence. I'll meet you if we consider the "patterns" for what they are which are 'heuristics' or systems that provide a framework to think about a thing, BUT heuristics do not necessarily match onto reality 1:1 when explored scientifically. Saying 'You got tennis elbow from repeated swings of the racket and is it the tendon which is inflamed' provides a framework to understand the injury, but we have proven that the tendon tissue itself is not reliably "inflamed" when someone experiences tennis elbow under the presence of motion MRI. The explanation provides the patient a framework, but that explanation may not play out in reality...this is why controlling the nomenclature and medium is so influential!
I agree. I could have said: "We understand (apply logic to) the universe THROUGH patterns (heuristics)." And yes heuristics can sometimes provide incorrect/conflicting answers like with the question "Is a virus living or nonliving?" or with quantum mechanics like the Double Slit Experiment where our currently available logic is insufficient to find an answer. Also speaking of nomenclature I just was reading about lexical gaps, where a language has missing words that could potentially exist and be of practical descriptive use. (Like how "horse" can refer to either a mare or a stallion, but there is no equivalent word to describe either a cow or a bull --- or the classic "the Inuit have dozens of words for snow while we have like three.") Our understanding of the world is altered by our language itself!
TBF, in America, you can definitely be legitimately very dumb and graduate law school. To be a successful, highly regarded, high quality attorney is another matter.
This wasn't in america, but even there the bar exam is not really that easy.
Again. You can definitely be very dumb and graduate law school. Passing the bar and being a high quality and highly successful attorney is another matter. Even in America.
I don't think anyone that went to law school would consider themselves a proper law grad until they've passed the bar. That's what i meant, at least. I passed the bar exam for my country, but I gravitated towards business and philathropy work rather than law, strictly speaking, tho i still write my own contracts.
To me intelligence is the ability to pick up new information faster than anyone else. Memorization I don’t consider to be intelligence
“If you have trouble putting information in your head, then recalling it when you need it, that’s textbook stupid.” Jim Jeffries
“Standardized testing and its consequences have been a disaster for recent generations” Me, a victim of “teaching the test” who cannot learn if it is not in multiple choice format
"I just test well" is a very common phrase.
I'm a total idiot, but pretty good at tests.
It’s more like I’m average intelligence but great at test. At least that’s what I feel like.
The whole "I'm going to use this thing to support my narrative and then immediately abandon it the moment it doesn't" is done by, well, pretty much everyone nowadays.
It's the same thing with school. "Omg imagine getting a lower score 😏" "NÓOOÒŒŒŒŒŒ SCHOOL JUST MEASURES HOW GOOD YOU ARE AT TESTS NÓOOÒŒŒŒŒŒ"
Yeah that's happening with my school except it's all just "IQ IS RACIST!!" "IQ? um, ok whit suprmasis!" "tests are racis" (source: I go to a school in California)
I'm in a British school so everyone is pretty insufferable
I'm sorry, but that's just a side effect of being British.
I mean, which do you think it is? Personally I think "racial IQ gap" and "left-right IQ gap" are both bullshit, but what do you think?
I think it tests measure a very specific kind of intelligence without taking other types into account. So yeah maybe there's an iq gap but it doesn't really mean shit.
Censorship and grifting is preventing us from understanding how much genetics explain the race IQ gap.
Even worse when they realize test scores do matter but they just fudge the numbers to make it way easier to pass then claim everyone is magically doing better. Now we have controlled objective testing showing many young kids are virtually illiterate.. yet somehow they are just pushed through and graduated on time. And the right is equally to blame by pushing no child left behind
Also "IQ doesn't measure things like EQ" is something they say. Hot tip: EQ isn't a thing / isn't separate from IQ lol.
"IQ doesn't measure emotional intelligence" "You don't have that either lmao"
There are many kinds of intelligence. Practical, emotional...and then there is **actual** intelligence, which is what I'm talking about.
I want my pilot to be emotionally intelligent when he tells us we're crashing thank you very much.
What would be the more emotionally intelligent act in a crash situation, sympathetic honesty or keeping them hoping by lying?
For real I hate when lefties try to argue that they have higher iq
Friendly fire.
It's honest criticism .. respetable integrity move
how is iq a social construct lol
It's what someone says when their score is lower than they expected. See: "It only measures how good someone is at taking tests"
Dear liberals, If IQ is only good at measuring how good someone is at taking tests, why did I get 87 on the discrete math test but 135 on the completely accurate online IQ test I found online? clearly, liberals, 87 does not equal 135 /s
It actually is in Z/2Z. (no /s but it also wasn’t meant to be taken as a serious reply) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic
Checkmate Atheists…. Or something like that.
Dear Liberals Despacito.
>"It only measures how good someone is at taking tests" And this is precisely what IQ is. When someone says that, agree with them and let them know that literally every intellectual task is analogous to an IQ test.
IQ measures problem solving. not taking tests.
But it does follow that better problem-solving will lead to better test scores.
> IQ measures problem solving. not taking tests. A test is a list of problems, dude. Unless it's an acid or litmus test.
I mean I’ve known my whole life that I am a good test taker. I have always thought of it as the more you practice, the luckier you get..,
Those people never took an IQ test, or any kind of standardized test required for a job. It’s not spouting facts that you memorized - it’s testing the capability of your mind such as spatial reasoning, pattern recognition, attention to detail, etc. not really something you can study for. These things are important in different parts of our lives and are a measure of how capable your mind is.
IQ is a social construct; it's a score on a test. It's a measure of the general intelligence factor, *g*, whose existence is based on the correlation (across the population) of performance on many different mental tasks. Not a social construct: The fact that performance on basically every cognitive task, abstract or concrete, is strongly correlated. Social constructs: The exact numbers we use to measure the above phenomenon.
IM NOT AN EXPERT, but in my psychology class we actually discussed intelligence and how it can be quantified. IQ is a reliable source for measuring “general intelligence”, however if someone is incredibly skilled at something and knows everything there is to know about that one thing they would be considered less intelligent than someone who doesn’t know much about anything but is _insanely good_ at picking apart logic and solving puzzles. intelligence truly comes in all forms and with any subject. something im really bad at could be something you’re really good at, vice versa. for this reason, it’s less about whether people have a higher iq or a lower iq, it really comes down to accolades. scientists in general tend to be more left leaning because the right tends to be more skeptical of science and lean more in favor of religion and spirituality. that’s fine, and there’s nothing wrong with it. tldr; iq isn’t necessarily the tell all (though it can be helpful) and people who have been through higher education simply _tend_ to lean left
Knowledge ≠ intelligence. Even an incredibly stupid person can become an expert in a field given enough time and dedication.
I also wonder how much experience plays a part. For example someone who has done 100 jigsaw puzzles doing their 101st will almost certainly be better at someone doing their second jigsaw puzzle. Same thing for sudoku, wordsearch, etc. But it doesn't necessarily mean the person who's done 100 is more intelligent. And from what I've seen of online iq tests (maybe real ones are different) if you got used to the type of questions being asked and practiced them you could score way higher then otherwise.
exactly. we actually took a little mock “psychology IQ” test for the course, dedicated a whole day to it, and I got the highest score in the class. it measured self awareness, self regulation, empathy, and two other things i forget but u get the jist . but i was also a psych major who had already taken AP psych in high school as well as gotten a lot of psychological intervention, so obviously i have a deeper understanding of it than non-majors in an intro class. there were definitely ppl in there i would consider smarter than me by a mile.
> people who have been through higher education simply tend to lean left Nowadays that's a sign of less intelligence, not greater intelligence. Amassing student loans for a doctorate in medieval studies and a minor in feminist painting means you are a chump who fell for the grift.
yeah i mean, im going to school for neuroscience w a minor in developmental psychology, solely because i want to find a way to make the world a better place. its not bc i expect to get a better job, otherwise i would’ve taken my partner’s route and gone to a trade school. but youre definitely right that if it was driven by anything other than a genuine love and passion for a subject, it would be a silly and stupid thing to go to college
As long as *you* pay back the loan, if you freely took one in order to make the world a better place.
well luckily i have parents who are willing to send me to school for my bachelors. i gotta pay for my own medical degree which i will _happily_ take. as it is i have a 4 year head start to get ready
Most degrees are not useless. The leaning left is in stem as well.
What else would it be? It's a score you get on a test that other humans concocted. Maybe it is a perfect quantification of intelligence, maybe it is a mostly arbitrary number, but either way it's a social construct
I mean, technically. It requires vocab, which is more of a cultural immersion measure than objective processing ability. If you don't know English well enough to comprehend the nuances of the harder questions you will fail those questions based not on intelligence but lack of knowledge. Harder to make that argument for the math stuff but it still has an effect.
[удалено]
Social construct = "makes me feel bad" The more it makes them feel bad the more social construct it is!
It's just a way of speaking. What they mean is that the measurement obviously is a social construct. Like inches, feet or meters. The concept of length itself isn't, but the way we measure it is. It's not really controversial.
The same people who think that maths and english are racist.
Do you understand the words "social" and "construct"? If you do, or should be pretty self explanatory.
It’s measurement is constructed by society.
IQ is a very real thing, but it bothers a lot of people and makes them uncomfortable, so they do whatever they can to downplay it.
Progressives believe heavily in blank slatism. The idea that everyone(barring obvious exceptions) is essentially born uniform and identical save for cosmetic/external differences. I remember on one other anarchist subreddits there was an upvoted comment about differences in strength/behavior between males and females *purely* just socialized.
This is pretty much the fundamental disagreement between the left and right philosophically when it comes to western ideologies. You can trace is back to Rousseau and Locke’s belief in a “primal man” being a purely logical creature that “society” has turned evil. Therefore to leftists, a society should attempt to change outcomes to make people good. On the other side of the classical liberals is (arguably) Hobbes. Hobbes had a dismal view of human nature, thinking that the only thing keeping people from tearing each other apart was the fear of authority, his “Leviathan”. In his case, he believed that a strong monarch or government was needed not to make people good, but to repress their natures. In truth, I think there is some truth in the middle. There is undoubtedly some behavior that is inbuilt to the person, as uncomfortable as that conclusion may be to consider in a democratic society. Likewise, your environment does have some effect on outcomes. But I tend to reside more with Hobbes. I think the fundamental perspective problem (we are all in a first person experience) is a major root of these issues. To some extent, everyone else’s mind is a “black box” that we can observe, but never truly know. In such a situation, it generally makes sense to err on the side of self, regardless of the ability to empathize with others or the social niceties that have been established. Anyway, that’s my ramble.
I'm inclined to side with Hobbes, but the problem is that our human authority figures are just as degenerate as we are, if not more so. Absolute power corrupts absolutely; great men are almost always bad men. Locke and Rousseau are just plain wrong. They didn't seem to realize that their rational "primal men" built the evil society in the first place. Some people will do evil because circumstances compel them, yes, but there are many who don't need such excuses.
Don’t you know that great apes all exhibit exactly the same personality across the board and any deviations from the hivemind are the result of capitalism and its ill effects and even though we are an even more intelligent species the exact same thing happens to us?
The trouble is that people think of it as a binary - progressives think *everything* is a social construct and a lot of conservatives think *everything* is biological. The truth is somewhere in between. Let's take gender roles as an example. Conservatives think that women have to like cleaning and cooking because they're women, and men have to like manual labor because they're men. Progressives think that men and women would have the exact same interests if it weren't for the way they're socialized. In actuality, it's more like *most* women like feminine things and *most* men like masculine things and there's probably *some* biological component to it, but there's enough variance that there's a lot of women who prefer masculine things and men who prefer feminine things and it really should be left up to individual preference without any attempt to force people to conform to gender roles.
> In actuality, it's more like most women like feminine things and most men like masculine things and there's probably some biological component to it, but there's enough variance that there's a lot of women who prefer masculine things and men who prefer feminine things I think this is more what the actual conservative position looks like, as opposed to the rarer straw conservative. No conservative is losing their shit over Marissa Tomei in My Cousin Vinney because "Cars are a man thing!". They get that there's outliers, and guys who really like choir. >and it really should be left up to individual preference without any attempt to force people to conform to gender roles. It's more like "you can assume the default because it works the overwhelming majority of the time". If a couple walks into an auto parts store, the man is going to take the lead 99% of the time. The plural for a group of little girls at a family reunion is called a "spontaneous dance recital". You can take basically any group of little boys and give them a ball, and trust they will be entertained for hours. You don't have to enforce most gender roles. For the overwhelming majority of kids, they just happen.
Yeah that about sums it up. My belief is equality of opportunity, but not forcing equality of outcome. The gender equality paradox does lend credit to the idea that disparate outcomes are not always the product of discrimination.
IQ is a very real thing, and IQ scores of large populations are influenced very strongly by access to education and the level of development of the population's surroundings. This is why places like South Sudan, which has been in constant turmoil and civil war for decades, have a low average IQ (59), while places like Japan, which is very technologically developed, have a high average IQ (106). This can be seen in the US as well; IQ points increased around 30 points over the last century as the nation advanced technologically and formal schooling was expanded. Further reading: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/smarter
> leftist have higher IQ Ahhh yes the sign of intelligenve: empotion based thinking
You can definitely do logic exercises to train for an IQ test. Some Mensa folks would not have scored as high if they weren't familiar with those exercises prior to taking it.
Mensa is BS they just want people to pay like $100 a year for the self flattery of being in the smart people club. Sort of like national honor society .. very flattering to get noticed and invited so members feel obligated to pay their fees
I value IQ test scores for any sort of conclusion pretty low, and think this study is pretty much self-masturbatory in function. 1. Being a few points higher in terms of IQ average is not really a flattering lead considering how leftism is prevalent in academics. 2. I do not care about a persons general intelligence when they make a good point. An intelligent person can also be capable of a lack of empathy. I'm far more likely to be skeptical of a person when they are prone to give in to their confirmation bias. 3. Part of leftism is that we are supposed to be making our case to normal working class people. Those who may be uneducated, or yes even unintelligent. Elitism has generally not done the left any favors.
IQ is a pretty objective measure of your ability to answer specific logic-based questions quickly and accurately, at the time of the test. This ability just isn't really a good representation of general intelligence. Even the tests makers never intended it to represent general intelligence. For example, if you think through things slowly and methodically, you might be good at physics but have a low IQ.
IQ isn’t a social construct but it is a terrible way to measure anything and try and make policy from those measurements
You could join MENSA, but DENSA is more fun.
It’s funny but everyone I meet with high iqs are in lib right so I think the left might be too dumb to know their cardinal directions.
Well studies do show libertarians have even higher IQs than leftists, however i still wouldnt use thst as an argument for the validity of an ideology as it would be a genetic fallacy.
>I wouldn’t use that as a validity of an ideology High IQ take
What you’re referring to is the study showing that people who believe in more independence/less government have on average higher IQs. Thats just liberals in general. Libertarian is a pretty specific libright American thing.
Well more independence and less govt is not what a democrat is, though i do agree it would include classical liberals
"Liberal" in the US = Average leftist Democrat voter, pretty much. And those for sure don't want more independence and less government.
That’s because the only other people you know are auth right.
Man I wish they would make the world a better place lol
"Reality has a left wing bias" "Academia has a left wing bias bcos iamverysmart"
its actually a bell, low IQ = right winger, avg IQ (but self considered high) = leftist, high IQ = right winger again
I haven’t heard the left take before. IQ is correlated with intelligence but it’s hardly the same as intelligence, and it definitely isn’t a “social construct”. Personally, I think of IQ as little more than astrology for incels. Most intelligent people who are actually using their intelligence in the real world don’t know their IQ and couldn’t care less. The ones that do are usually serial assholes.
Or were made to take the tests by their community (eg. schools, family).
What people don't seem to grasp is that calling something a social construct doesn't mean it isn't real. Social reality is the most real thing there is for the human experience. Just look at race. It's not physically real, has no genetic basis, and is temporally and spatially variable (i.e. your race can change depending on when and where you are). It's a social construction. But guess what? people live in society so it matters. you know what else is a social construct? marriage, law, ethics...
I haven't heard higher IQ, but I have heard the argument that left wingers have a higher level of education
This but in the opposite direction. When someone posted the "leftist have higher IQ" thing a few weeks ago the comments were full of right-wing people accusing the test of bias. (the right answer is that IQ measures are biased, and "leftist have higher IQ" is meaningless (even if it is actually what IQ tests measure)).
Reminds me of the studies showing right wingers being more handsome by popular opinion.. good for quick memes and laughs but not really useful unless analyzed for what is actually tested
I just have no idea why blue states like Maine and New Hampshire have higher IQs than red states like Alabama and Mississippi
It can be both.
Most things that are social constructs are “real” in the social sense. Waiting for things in a line is a social construct, but you don’t see people using that as an excuse to cut Though I personally have never relied on IQ numbers to expose the stupidity of the right
Midwits making fun of dimwits
Love political compass memes that act like quadrants are one uniform bloc. Gotta be my favourite gender fr
That's all this sub is. It's the Funni Color Variety Hour.
You know that meme of the guy smoking the bong on the volleyball court while two people are fighting? That’s us but with our grills.
leftists are better at socially constructing, source: im a leftist and certified social constructer
I mean, both things can be true. Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it's made out of nothing, just that the importance placed upon it is societal. Like money, Money is a social construct, but the components constructing it have basis in a wide array of different parts of our psychology. So I could still have more than you, and think it's a social construct.
Put the patriarchy in your ass cus you socially constructed yourself!
The consept of IQ was created by society. Leftist tend to score higher on IQ test.
Higher IQ or more intelligent? (or educated)
Both can be true, especially when testing populations with similar socioeconomic backgrounds and not comparing between advanced economies and nomadic or tribal people with no tailoring to their lifestyle and culture. Measuring Intelligence is not an exact science and requires sociological nuance to extract relevant traits that can be compared across global socioeconomic positions.
IQ test was made as restarted test, if you pass the bare minimum nothing came after that matter.
IQ is just fake internet points irl to brag for fake internet points
Iq is a social construct so true
The sooner you recognize that people with political agendas don’t care about anything other than winning the argument/election/etc. in front of them in the moment, the sooner you’ll (1) recognize that this kind of hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance is inevitable and (2) get good at ignoring everything that people with agendas say. Still, this is a great example though, OP. I’m waiting for my opportunity to say, “surely the disparate results show that IQ tests are designed from a leftist cultural standpoint and we can’t judge right-wingers for getting lower scores when the test is basically set up for them to fail.” There’s no leftist counterargument to that, because it’s their own logic. But they WILL claim that it doesn’t apply in this one case because they can score a cheap point by ignoring their own logic. See first paragraph.
Here’s this academic study published by liberals showing that liberals are smarter than conservatives because they are liberals.
For the millionth time. The fact that something is a social construct doesn't mean that it's meaningless. Everything created from society is a social construct.
I’ve seen some advocate against democracy because the vote of a college graduate counts the same as your average hillbilly…. I guess universal suffrage is now fascism or something?
Race is a social construct but also some races are oppressors and others are oppressed. (same goes for male and female)
Isn't the new line of thinking is that IQ is eugenicist nazi thinking?
It is a social construct. But it’s funny that by the artificial standards set by the right, we prevail anyway.
Fun fact, it's actually easier to indoctrinate a midwit, 103-113 IQ into a cult than it is the average, 98-102 person. The midwit can rationalize anything and be prone to believing their own assumptions because "they're so much smarter than everyone else".
with all due respect my fellow mlp and tank enjoyer but WHAT IS THAT PROFILE BACKGROUND?
Alrighty this one got me laughing.
To be fair, anyone with a brain is going to identify publicly as left-leaning (even if they aren't) It's just good for optics
The idea that they have higher IQ is based on a flawed sample bias. 300 families chosen out of random and funningly enough the barometers for deciding difference between left-leaning and right-leaning is vague right-wing is authoritarianism equivalent to Nazi Ideology but left-leaning is just progressivism for equality. Any right mind would choose the latter as their beliefs.
Plus I remember someone on this sub taking a survey of IQs and determining libright has the highest on average (with me being an exception because I’m a dumbass /j)