Elections in various countries

[Linguoboy]

But, that said, I don't think that those mental abilities are necessarily all down to environmental factors. Some people take to some subjects like a fish to water, while others need enormous amounts of effort to master them, or can't master them at all. This sometimes shows up long before people were really exposed to all that many environmental factors related to those subjects. That's probably at least partly innate.

A lot of it is how these subjects are presented, however. My late husband--a very intelligent man--had to take remedial math in summer school one year. After about a week, his teacher was like, "Why are you here?" And the reason was, basically, that his teacher during the regular term had been one of those "sink or swim" types who think you either "get" math or you don't and they don't have any responsibility to vary their presentation of the material according to your aptitude or learning style. It wasn't that he couldn't understand math, it was that it hadn't been presented in a way that was comprehensible to him.

[MacAnDàil]

Huh. I expected someone to challenge me on all actually existing societies forcing me to worship a fake deity.

I maybe thought that too obvious.

Sure, we ought to avoid genocide (and ecocide). But stupidity is not the alternative. To the contrary, IQ was rising through most of the 20th century worldwide until the 80s when cable TV came in. So, during the biggest democratisation in history we were also becoming more intelligent.

What do you mean by rising IQ? I support raising literacy and numeracy, but IQ is defined as how you compare to the mean. If average "intelligence" rises, correctly normed IQ as strictly defined should not rise.

Well I’m obviously referring to the Flynn Effect and its reversal.

This is a very contentious subject. You should look at all the interpretations of the Flynn Effect (which IIRC still continues, although it's plateauing).

There are many sources indicating that there is now a reversed Flynn Effect or Negative Flynn Effect (although it is admittedly not universal) e.g.
https://www-pnas-org.wikipedialibrary.i ... 1718793115

Also, the psychologists who use IQ do not claim it measures but estimates intelligence.

Besides all these excellent points, I'd add that intelligence is overvalued in our culture anyway.
I don't dismiss intelligence; but I'd take courage or common decency over high IQ any day.

Sure, decency can be more important than intelligence but I certainly would not say that intelligence is overvalued. Actually overvalued are:
Ability to sell things and earn a profit, especially on destructive products
and fun, especially loud obnoxious drug-fueled fun

Just for fun, I did a quick Google for typical IQ test questions. Here's one that nicely illustrates the point made by the article I read.

Find the answer that best completes the analogy:
Book is to Reading as Fork is to:
a. drawing
b. writing
c. stirring
d. eating

The "correct answer" is d. This is obviously a test of whether you follow Western norms! But even given that, why is "stirring" a wrong answer? It's more intelligent to recognize that a tool has multiple uses! Plus, the test writer's analogy is pretty bad. A book is something you read; a fork is not something you eat.

It's specifically this millenium and a bit's Western culture because forks were introduced to Europe in the 10th century. Which is why tests should be available in different languages and take into consideration cultural differences.

But where did you get that from? Is that an actual IQ test or a free internet version thereof? I ask because most mahjong found on the internet is not mahjong, a four-player game, at all but taipei, a solitaire game. It would be like Microsoft calling its Spider Solitaire 'Rummy'.

[zompist]

But where did you get that from? Is that an actual IQ test or a free internet version thereof? I ask because most mahjong found on the internet is not mahjong, a four-player game, at all but taipei, a solitaire game. It would be like Microsoft calling its Spider Solitaire 'Rummy'.

As I said, I did a quick Google search. If you have similar questions from an actual IQ test, post a few! I very much doubt they're any better.

[rotting bones]

I like the Taoist idea of the monarch just being there, looking grand, and never doing anything at all.

Can we randomly confer the title "Imperial Majesty" on 50% of the population and let the rest be called "Fool"?

I maybe thought that too obvious.

Would it have been so terrible to let me rave a bit about the Almighty Dollar?

There are many sources indicating that there is now a reversed Flynn Effect or Negative Flynn Effect (although it is admittedly not universal) e.g.
https://www-pnas-org.wikipedialibrary.i ... 1718793115

Wikipedia says: "Meta-analyses indicate that, overall, the Flynn effect continues, either at the same rate,[9] or at a slower rate in developed countries.[10][11]" Citations: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24979188/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25987509/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

Also, the psychologists who use IQ do not claim it measures but estimates intelligence.

Your argument is unclear to me. My post was intended as an explanation of why I'm in favor of literacy and numeracy while being against "intelligence", the latter being compatible only with genocidal policies.

I think you're still ignoring the many interpretations of the Flynn Effect. IQ is not a straightforward unit of intelligence. To use it the way you're trying to, you need to hedge your argument in a constellation of procedural context. IIRC the IQ procedure assumes that the g factor falls on a Normal distribution (a dubious assumption if you look at the actual samples), and tries to compare your position to the mean value. In addition to the things I said before, this means, for example, that if the average g factor rises while yours remains constant, then your IQ will fall even as you're standing still. Similarly, if the average g factor falls across the region where the test is normed and the regions where you administer the test are open to sampling biases, that's sufficient to cause the "IQ" to rise. With this line of argumentation, there are many ways for a genocidal maniac to argue based on the shape of the distribution that the g factor is falling despite the Flynn Effect.

[MacAnDàil]

I maybe thought that too obvious.

Would it have been so terrible to let me rave a bit about the Almighty Dollar?

A dollar, in general a currency, while overvalued, is still not a deity.

There are many sources indicating that there is now a reversed Flynn Effect or Negative Flynn Effect (although it is admittedly not universal) e.g.
https://www-pnas-org.wikipedialibrary.i ... 1718793115

Wikipedia says: "Meta-analyses indicate that, overall, the Flynn effect continues, either at the same rate,[9] or at a slower rate in developed countries.[10][11]" Citations: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24979188/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25987509/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

OK There seems to be some disagreement on the existence or not of a reverse Flynn Effect. It is clear at least that the Flynn Effect has reversed

Also, the psychologists who use IQ do not claim it measures but estimates intelligence.

Your argument is unclear to me. My post was intended as an explanation of why I'm in favor of literacy and numeracy while being against "intelligence", the latter being compatible only with genocidal policies.

But my whole point is that intelligence is less compatible with genocidal politics than stupidity.

I think you're still ignoring the many interpretations of the Flynn Effect. IQ is not a straightforward unit of intelligence. To use it the way you're trying to, you need to hedge your argument in a constellation of procedural context. IIRC the IQ procedure assumes that the g factor falls on a Normal distribution (a dubious assumption if you look at the actual samples), and tries to compare your position to the mean value. In addition to the things I said before, this means, for example, that if the average g factor rises while yours remains constant, then your IQ will fall even as you're standing still. Similarly, if the average g factor falls across the region where the test is normed and the regions where you administer the test are open to sampling biases, that's sufficient to cause the "IQ" to rise. With this line of argumentation, there are many ways for a genocidal maniac to argue based on the shape of the distribution that the g factor is falling despite the Flynn Effect.

I have never heard of any genocidal maniac arguing about g factor or IQ. Genocidal maniacs are generally less coherent than that.

PS Some societies force others not to show that they worship a deity, at least in some contexts. France these days often insists on hiding one’s religion, primarily Islam.
Indeed, it would interesting if those opposed to hijabs were also opposed to other inventions from the same part of the world like forks or wheels.

In any case, I certainly did not speak of intelligence as something innate. To the contrary, I wanted to emphasise the malleability of it. My main point was that stupidity was not related to avoiding genocide, intelligence is.

As for courage being more important, yes, as long as that courage is a courage to do the right thing and not to do the wrong one.
Decency is indeed more important than intelligence, which is why I think that the school system ought to be entirely revamped. As useful skills as literacy and numeracy are, they should not be the priority. Taking care of the planet we need to survive and Life in society ought to and so should be the first subjects taught at school.

But intelligence is still underrated with respect to to profit and “fun” nowadays, even in contexts where intelligence ought to be the priority, like at the university where I work.

Also overrated are facility and money. It all comes down to overvaluing short-term pleasure and profit over long-term survival.

I may get back to Zompist later.

[Ares Land]

But my whole point is that intelligence is less compatible with genocidal politics than stupidity.

Would that it were so simple. There are a lot of very smart fascists out there. Have you ever heard old Jean-Marie Le Pen speak? Thoroughly amoral, but a very, very smart man.

[MacAnDàil]

But my whole point is that intelligence is less compatible with genocidal politics than stupidity.

Would that it were so simple. There are a lot of very smart fascists out there. Have you ever heard old Jean-Marie Le Pen speak? Thoroughly amoral, but a very, very smart man.

Let's assume that it is true. But, even then, if you compare him to the vast slates of incompetent candidates that the RN comes out with every election, the one example doesn't make any trend.

[Travis B.]

PS Some societies force others not to show that they worship a deity, at least in some contexts. France these days often insists on hiding one’s religion, primarily Islam.
Indeed, it would interesting if those opposed to hijabs were also opposed to other inventions from the same part of the world like forks or wheels.

I highly suspect that France's present-day ostensible laïcité is just a mask for anti-Muslim prejudice rather than being honest secularism, with things such as forbidding the wearing of Christian symbols in schools just being to hide this reality.

[Man in Space]

I wouldn't even say that in America we worship the Almighty Dollar™. I'd say we worship freedom and independence to a fault (problematic in part because each half of the country disagrees on what that means), and it's bullshit.

[Man in Space]

But where did you get that from? Is that an actual IQ test or a free internet version thereof? I ask because most mahjong found on the internet is not mahjong, a four-player game, at all but taipei, a solitaire game. It would be like Microsoft calling its Spider Solitaire 'Rummy'.

As I said, I did a quick Google search. If you have similar questions from an actual IQ test, post a few! I very much doubt they're any better.

I can remember a bit from when I was given the WAIS-IV a few years back when they tested me for autism. There were multiple sections of the test for things like reasoning, math, pattern recognition, critical thinking…I remember one section was about describing similarities between two concepts (one that took me a second to get was the similarity between the tides and music).

When I get off work, please remind me to find the documentation so I can post some of it (it’s in my e-mails, I had to send it to Mensa and Intertel to qualify). I can show what it’s like under the hood.

[rotting bones]

MacAnDàil: I get a sense that you're under the false impression I'm proposing to create a culture that doesn't value intelligence. Just because the primary purpose of contemporary politics is to thwart evil smart people, it doesn't follow that smart people are always, or often, evil. Most smart people work for whoever's court they find themselves in. Nowadays, most of them help corporations turn a profit. The prototype of the smart person we must defeat is less like David Irving or Daniel Haqiqatjou (although those are definitely enemies), and more like a Wall Street banker or those who engage in the kinds of activities in Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

Seeing my post as a vague association of ideas is bound to lead to misinterpretation. The question is: Is your politics geared to SAVE the average g factor, or the stupids like Homer Simpson? This question has nothing to do with culture. That is, unless you think culture is better served by the extinction of the Homer Simpsons of the world.

On the other hand, the Irving/Haqiqatjou category is less rare than you might think. IIRC they administered IQ tests to the Nuremberg defendants, and the average was two standard deviations above the mean, genius level. None of the defendants were intellectually deficient.

Fact is, eugenics based on innate intelligence has long been a cherished dream of the intellectual arm of Empire. There is a whole literature proposing to raise something like the g factor at the expense of the stupids starting from Malthus all the way down to the 20th century eugenics movement. On the internet, I have encountered arguments like the ones I've tried to summarize here more times than I can count.

Man in Space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSTFYPmhGW0

It's not just America. The Almighty Dollar is more actual than any other deity under the global financial system. It needs no one to worship it consciously.

[Man in Space]

But where did you get that from? Is that an actual IQ test or a free internet version thereof? I ask because most mahjong found on the internet is not mahjong, a four-player game, at all but taipei, a solitaire game. It would be like Microsoft calling its Spider Solitaire 'Rummy'.

As I said, I did a quick Google search. If you have similar questions from an actual IQ test, post a few! I very much doubt they're any better.

OP delivers:



It’s more involved than the tests you find online. They norm it and it measures more than just knowledge of facts and trivia. Of course the measures don’t exist in a vacuum, and people, unlike football teams, are more than what their record says they are, but the actual WAIS-IV and similar tests are more than the popular-science drivel you’ll find on Google.

[zompist]

It’s more involved than the tests you find online. They norm it and it measures more than just knowledge of facts and trivia. Of course the measures don’t exist in a vacuum, and people, unlike football teams, are more than what their record says they are, but the actual WAIS-IV and similar tests are more than the popular-science drivel you’ll find on Google.

Undoubtedly true! I worked for an aptitude testing company, so I don't doubt the work that goes into professional tests. But the question is whether they measure something that can be called "intelligence", rather than something else. Like the drunk searching for his keys at the lamppost because there's more light there, people prefer what is measurable, even if what is measured has only a vague relationship with what they claim it is.

Again, we can't judge without seeing the actual questions. But look at the categories. "Vocabulary" measures conventional education. "Similarities" is probably the exact sort of question I talked about above, measuring a type of categorization that is not universal, or even universally useful, but happens to underlie scientific taxonomies.

The question on arithmetic probably at least arguably have one correct answer. But numbers are a technology; it's ultimately like defining intelligence as "ability to use an iPhone". Undoubtedly there's a correlation! But it's precisely in the mismatches that the problem appears. Some cultures are just not numbers-oriented.

[Man in Space]

Again, we can't judge without seeing the actual questions. [. . .] "Similarities" is probably the exact sort of question I talked about above, measuring a type of categorization that is not universal, or even universally useful, but happens to underlie scientific taxonomies. . .

That category is the one thing I actually remember somewhat well from the test (it was a while ago). They gave you two concepts (e.g. the tide and music, that's the one that sticks out to me) and you have to speak to what is similar about them. They do prompt you if you can demonstrate you're in the ballpark but have trouble spitting it out, I will say; they did that with that question. (The answer they were looking for was rhythm/repetition.) They won't straight-up give you the answer; it was more like "You said X, can you tell me more about how that is relevant?".

[MacAnDàil]

Rotting Bones: That clarifies things. It really did seem like you were valuing stupidity.

Zompist: Yes, some cultures are not number-oriented and likely better at planting than we are. How we could devise a test that takes that into account I don't know.

[Travis B.]

One good thing to keep in mind is that many hunter-gatherer societies have/had a much more detailed knowledge about the natural world than us moderns, because it is/was a matter of survival for them while we, supposedly so much more intelligent people, have far less use for knowledge on what plant is good to eat versus what plant is dangerously poisonous.

[Ares Land]

But my whole point is that intelligence is less compatible with genocidal politics than stupidity.

Would that it were so simple. There are a lot of very smart fascists out there. Have you ever heard old Jean-Marie Le Pen speak? Thoroughly amoral, but a very, very smart man.

Let's assume that it is true. But, even then, if you compare him to the vast slates of incompetent candidates that the RN comes out with every election, the one example doesn't make any trend.

Good point. A lot of them are pretty dumb.

I highly suspect that France's present-day ostensible laïcité is just a mask for anti-Muslim prejudice rather than being honest secularism, with things such as forbidding the wearing of Christian symbols in schools just being to hide this reality.

Most of it is anti-Muslim prejudice. Though there's also a strong dislike of religion in general, and perhaps a general feeling that people should be protected from themselves.

[rotting bones]

Rotting Bones: That clarifies things. It really did seem like you were valuing stupidity.

To be fair, I do tend to hate smart people. There are very few problems that can't be solved by lobotomizing the geniuses. However, this argument in particular doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that.

I tend to hate smart people when they eat up all cultural forms with pretensions to elitism. 1. Adorno argued that jazz props up unjust power structures while he himself loved European classical music. 2. Daniel Haqiqatjou is a Harvard graduate who says he wants to promote traditional Islamic culture, but what he actually promotes is ELITE Muslim culture. Belly dancing, ribald jokes and Islamic folk songs are undignified. ...

[rotting bones]

One good thing to keep in mind is that many hunter-gatherer societies have/had a much more detailed knowledge about the natural world than us moderns, because it is/was a matter of survival for them while we, supposedly so much more intelligent people, have far less use for knowledge on what plant is good to eat versus what plant is dangerously poisonous.

I tend to associate intelligence with the ability to manipulate symbols, not necessarily with knowledge. Of course, snootiness isn't restricted to any one demographic. Baudrillard points out that the ignorant masses are extremely elitist. They defer responsibility to "superiors" in a supreme act of elitist indifference.

[Ares Land]

One good thing to keep in mind is that many hunter-gatherer societies have/had a much more detailed knowledge about the natural world than us moderns, because it is/was a matter of survival for them while we, supposedly so much more intelligent people, have far less use for knowledge on what plant is good to eat versus what plant is dangerously poisonous.

I tend to associate intelligence with the ability to manipulate symbols, not necessarily with knowledge. Of course, snootiness isn't restricted to any one demographic. Baudrillard points out that the ignorant masses are extremely elitist. They defer responsibility to "superiors" in a supreme act of elitist indifference.

Ugh, Baudrillard. Ignore him. Among many other faults, he's unscientific.

(For starters, ignorant masses? If he'd ever left Saint Germain des Prés he'd have realized there's no such thing.)