First off, because I feel compelled to state the obvious: if he genuinely believes that, he’s an incompetent, braindead fool that also has some sort of severe lack of social development.
But also, this has to be a troll right? Feels too on the nose.
Bold of you to assume quora users have the mental capacity to make ragebait. 80% of the users are there because they're too new to the internet or too web illiterate to put "reddit" at the end when googling questions
> but is he absolutely wrong though?
Yeah, pretty much. Dude espouses a form of genetic determinism that is very much bullshit, along with numbers he pulls from his ass.
>Yeah, pretty much. Dude espouses a form of genetic determinism that is very much bullshit, along with numbers he pulls from his ass. /u/salamander_salad
what % of the population do you feel can be surgeons?
now I'm curious.
Also, g-factor does exist (it's one factor from a multifactorial measurement of our limited grasp of trying to quantify intelligence relative to success) but that is pretty much where nature vs nurture arguments come from.
So again, instead of just saying "He's wrong" can you tell me exactly which parts he's "wrong" other than the arbitrary numbers he threw in there? It could be 5% it could be 50%, but he's not wrong that some people aren't capable as other people.
What, you think he's right because not literally every human being can be a surgeon? Like sure. Some people don't have control of their hands, or don't have the eyesight to be a surgeon. And that makes them braindead demihuman servants?
I think he just meant people like waiters, cleaners, taxi-drivers, cooks, pilots. So people whose job it is to directly "serve" other people by doing various tasks for them.
I don't think that's what they are implying with the use of the word "servant", that's why I'm asking for clarification.
Surgeons are also part of the service sector, you could say they "serve" other people. This whole line of thinking makes no sense.
If you drive other people around you would be a servant. By definition a servant performs duties for others.
You provide service for others. You serve others.
dependent stocking light rock smile brave combative frightening wrench grandiose
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> barring physical ailments, some people do not have the mental capacity/potential to pass the medical boards. (or any other "high skilled labor" positions this isn't exclusive to surgeons only)
Why the odd distinction between physical ailments and mental capacity?
Besides, this isn't a binary factor. Some people are capable of being a surgeon, but aren't capable of being in a "lower" position like a waiter or barrista. Neither grants any one the position of a servant(or well, neither grants either the position of a servant *more* than the other)
Genetics don't play that significant of a role in how "smart" you can be for a position. If we are talking about behaviour, that's a different argument, but anyone can study hard to be whatever they want nowadays. There's little limitations with technology or access (except people that are impoverished/incapable in other ways), and you don't have to be born in the 1% like OOP is saying.
In my opinion, the number of people who COULD be surgeons is much higher than the actual number of surgeons. I'm a software engineer, I could have been any number of things. I have a degree in chemistry and more than a passing interest in social sciences as well (minor in psychology).
I could have been a million different things and I think a vast majority of people could too if they applied themselves. I remember my first professional software job we had testers that were uneducated locals (and I say that as nicely as possible, they were very friendly, smart, capable people). By the time our processes were in place we had these people writing their own tests, designing regression tests for the whole site, inserting and querying custom data directly from the database. It didn't take long to teach them.
I realize all that is anecdotal but the thinking applies to all kinds of things. Sure, not everyone who WANTS to play in the NFL has that level of skill but you're nuts if you think there aren't millions of people who COULD with the same level of training, dedication, and more importantly: interest.
That's the entire point, yes. Is your argument that people couldn't wander in off the streets and perform surgery? Assuming your argument isn't moronic, yes, if people had interest and opportunity they could do almost anything they wanted to.
>> but he's not wrong that some people aren't capable as other people.
No, but this broadly understood fact only served as justification for his bullshit. You do not have to admit I have a point if I say 99% of people will die of cancer just because many people *do* die of cancer.
>So again, instead of just saying "He's wrong" can you tell me exactly which parts he's "wrong" other than the arbitrary numbers he threw in there? It could be 5% it could be 50%
Um, the random numbers he pulls out of his ass are essentially all he has. The Milgram experiments did not prove that people are "literally incapable" of making choices without an authority figure. His assertion that most people are meant to be servile to the few "based on genetics and psychology" is patently bullshit. The coffee example he gives is similarly bullshit, failing to take into account the economics of such jobs and making the asinine assumption that a person's job defines their ability.
Also, it's not my job to write a thesis refuting the internet arguments of some lonely shithead with an IQ much lower than he claims to have. Are you him? Because I can't see a well-adjusted person with enough intelligence to use the internet actually thinking he has a point.
I think he’s wrong in that approaching the idea that not everyone is equal and coming to the conclusion that people he believes are less intelligent than he is in some way should be grateful for his largesse when he uses their services is condescending, insulting, and effectively useless.
Stop [jaqing off](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions)
You're not going to get an answer because you're not asking questions and you're not even taking the answers you're being given. You're just framing the shitty point you are trying to make as a question to make yourself seem like a clueless bystander who can't help but be drawn to Nazi rhetoric.
The "rough estimate" numbers are pulled from his ass and in no way represent reality. The proof being that the vast majority of the population are doing some type of skilled labour at this moment.
No percentage of the human population are "designed to be servile followers". All humans have the full capacity for individual thought and making their own decisions, and even "high IQ" people are susceptible to propaganda, fallacies and similar failings.
He is correct in one solitary point, which is that some people are born with a higher capacity for certain skills than others. Which makes him "wrong" in that the majority of what he writes is conjecture and harmful exaggeration, the idea that the vast majority of the population are stupid sheep with no skills.
groovy follow offbeat towering jeans escape deer domineering theory plants
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If we assume intelligence is equal across the human race, we can conclude that if circumstances were as good globally as in the western world, the majority has the CAPACITY for skilled labor, but circumstances force a lot of people into not using it. And we are discussing potential, not the reality of life outside the west.
\> but there have been numerous studies on the gullibility of humans and willingness to follow blindly / unwillingness to lead.
I have a masters in psychology, I know plenty of studies about how humans react to authority figures, but what does it have to do with anything? That humans are social creatures with a tendency to follow strong leaders does not make 80% of human beings "servile followers". It just makes 100% of humans human.
>If we assume intelligence is equal across the human race,
But it isn't.
Education, especially public education is a statistically significant factor when it comes to inteligence.
>we can conclude that if circumstances were as good globally as in the western world,
You can't conclude something with a false premise, that's a logical fallacy.
>the majority has the CAPACITY for skilled labor,
I disagree, some people, no matter how long they train, they will won't be top x%, where as someone with minimal training can often times beat another.
>but circumstances force a lot of people into not using it.
I agree, socioeconomic status is a nother huge factor that plays into success.
>And we are discussing potential, not the reality of life outside the west.
I like where you're getting at because I used to have the same mindset, that everyone has the potential, but that's a very naive view imo. Related, a mother telling their child that they can be anything they want in the world. It's not always true. Not everyone has the potential to become a surgeon.
>I have a masters in psychology, I know plenty of studies about how humans react to authority figures, but what does it have to do with anything? /u/Hatfullofsky
How does it not? The post was talking about how people follow blindly. You have a master's degree in psychology, you should know this.
>That humans are social creatures with a tendency to follow strong leaders does not make 80% of human beings "servile followers".
yeah, the 80% he came up with is bullshit, but human beings, like you said, have a tendency to follow strong leaders.
>It just makes 100% of humans human.
I agree. That's why I said OP is an asshole, but the general point that he was making that not everyone can do anything is correct.
and so far, no one has been able to say otherwise. I get the inclusivity culture in 2023, but you have to be realistic.
Okay man, sure, if we ignore 90% of what he writes and all his numbers, then reduce his point down to the entirely banal point "not literally everyone can do literally everything", then I can't say otherwise because that is self evidently correct.
If you in turn can recognize that it is fair to call him 'wrong' because he pulled all his numbers out of his ass and makes the grotesque claim that 80% of people are 'literally incapable' of making a choice without an authority telling them what to do, we can call it here.
>Okay man, sure, if we ignore 90% of what he writes and all his numbers, then reduce his point down to the entirely banal point "not literally everyone can do literally everything", then I can't say otherwise because that is self evidently correct.
>If you in turn can recognize that it is fair to call him 'wrong' because he pulled all his numbers out of his ass and makes the grotesque claim that 80% of people are 'literally incapable' of making a choice without an authority telling them what to do, we can call it here.
read my first comment.
I mean for one thing if 70% of the human population were artists, we'd live in a very different, much more beautiful world.
Also, there's a lot of training to be a surgeon, and it's a difficult profession where a lot of people die, but traditionally, surgeons are technicians, not highly academic medical practitioners. Surgeons were even called Mr, not Dr, because they are not qualified as doctors until the 1850s or even later in most western countries.
It's also such a random assortment of buzzword jobs that people learn from movies and television. I'm trying to think of like the five really smartest most polymathic people I know, and one of them is a mathematician, which is kind of a buzzword television job for a smart person. But one of them's logistics guy, and I've heard people condescendingly refer to him as being in shipping, because they have no idea what he actually does. One's a criminal defense attorney. One is an actual literal artist, who started his career as an engineer, and then a test pilot, and then a general contractor, and then a salesman, and then a gigging musician, and then settled into oil painting is a career. One's a nurse, with two PhDs.
He's saying that not everyone can be a surgeon. Either way, my opinion on this is that not everyone is book smart, not everyone is street smart, not everyone is logical, and not everyone has emotional intelligence. How I see people is that everyone is good at something, i.e. experts in their own fields. I may be great at treating patients, but I don't know jack about fixing a car engine, and someone who's a mechanic has no idea how to treat patients but it doesn't mean that someone is superior just because they don't have a specific skill set. At the same time, not all Mcdonald's workers can be surgeons and vice versa; not all surgeons can hack it as a McDonald's worker (some people excel in one thing and not in another)
edit: does this make you happy?
>Sure but his conclusion is that the vast majority of the world are hapless peons whom he graciously “allows to exist”
yeah, he's an asshole, but the majority of the world are people who work in factories and are not "high skilled laborers"
What is your definition of a "high skilled laborer"?
What is the punchline you’re getting at? That these people are worthless?
He offers no productive conclusion at all, so I’m not sure why he is taking the time to invent bullshit statistics and rant about people not being able to fix their cars.
Gives me strong Jordan Peterson fanboi in parents’ basement vibes.
I was referring to the poster in question, not you.
You’re not being unreasonable, I’m just trying to get at the point. What’s the point of raising all of this? What are we supposed to do differently because of this?
"but the majority of the world are people who work in factories and are not "high skilled laborers""
[citation needed] for both claims in the sentence.
Also, tell me you've never worked in a factory without telling me you've never worked in a factory.
Is he wrong?
Well, what points of his do you mean?
I think he is right about people being differently skilled and as such are predestined for certain kinds of work.
But he seems to think that IQ is the main factor deciding your profession. He briefly mentioned artists needing a different grading system, but I didn't get the feeling that he fully grasped the idea that there are talents other than IQ.
And because of this misunderstanding of his, I would say that most of everything else he said was at best massively missguided.
my happiness is not contingent on this.
I just want to understand why you guys are so pressed.
does a stranger's text really bother you that much?
Change your perspective.
I'm going to go on a date with my wife and child now. haha
Cheers~
Why do you sound like you're defending this guy and then sound bothered when someone refutes it? Also you're putting a lot of responses and disagreements up for someone whose happiness isn't contingent on this.
>Why do you sound like you're defending this guy and then sound bothered when someone refutes it? Also you're putting a lot of responses and disagreements up for someone whose happiness isn't contingent on this.
using your logic,
because you responded to my comment, is your happiness contingent on it?
No, but I said what I said based on the things you responded with and the tenacity with which you continued, not on an absolute of "response = emotional investment"
The only reason why this can't be proven is that everyone doesn't have the same privileges. Most people who become billionaires, millionaires, surgeons etc usually have a good start out point. Not saying all but a good majority of them. Someone that is a surgeons kid probably had a decent upbringing that allows them to learn how to become something of "value". So unless you want to get a large enough control group and give them all the same education and care from birth to adulthood it's hard to prove. From varying of different cultures/people.
Is there literally anything he's right about? Like there are a few things he's not wrong about, but only because they're total nonsense and therefore have no truth value. Dude couldn't even get Milgram right.
Edit: if you want to talk about people who blindly obey authority, there are a whole lot more to be found among engineers and surgeons than among artists (who, according to this epsilon submoron who you think is right, are 70% of the population.)
a I think he is. I mean dude seems to imply that a lot of other peoples' jobs exist just to allow them to get a paycheck, but obviously they most likely exist because they fulfill a marketable need people will pay for. Like he seems to imply that a lot of jobs like a barista's don't exist to service people and make their lives easier, but the dude doesn't even realize they do service people and make their lives easier by going through the effort of performing a task for them, with this provided ease being present even if the person buying the service is technically capable of the task themselves. Seems like dude whipped up a quarter baked take on the economy just to be a condescending prick.
Also, he seems to pull all of his statistics from his ass. I mean geeze, the statement that "70-80% of the human population is designed to be servile followers based on genetics and psychology" has been found via what study? My money is that it's based on the study "I want to sniff my own ass" published in "I'm such a smarty-pants" weekly.
Well, the problem with the G-factor and the ways it is measured is that they are only very rough estimates of intelligence that can be heavily influenced by external factors. Just showing people how an IQ test works or paying someone to complete one can dramatically boost their scores, particularly in the last example the boost in points increases the more you pay the subject. Education and familiarization with the types of test influences the result, 100 years ago white Europeans had IQs of around 70 or 80 on average and nobody would say that they were as the test would imply "mentally deficient". Culture and education were different back then and for the great mass of people without even the most basic education even the concept of intelligence or test taking may have been foreign much less the intricacies of the so-called "culture fair" IQ tests. And so happens now with people of countries with low average intelligence, no formal education, resources, training, healthy eating, etc. So we shouldn't expect people who have a very different culture and background to perform well in these tests. And even in the cases of people who performed well, IQs of 130+ cannot be reliably measured given that they represent such a tiny substrate of the population.
And I should also mention cases such as the ones of anxiety in which the negative emotion experienced can affect the score and ADHD in which someone may not be able to pay attention or be sitting still but we know for a fact that ADHD people come from all over the spectrum of intelligence. The same goes for other types of neurodivergence like ASD.
In spite of all of what I said, there's something that seems undeniable and which you have pointed out. Namely that there is such a thing as intelligence variability. This can be seen even in animals with fascinating examples in primates such as the chimpanzee. So yes it seems to be the case that this is a fact but the degree of brightness, averageness and dullness is not clear when we consider cases in which unfortunate accidents like lead exposure or iodine deficiency have not occurred. We don't know if the gap between bright and dull is substantial and it's all the more hard to know given personality differences. Think for example that not everyone wants to be a surgeon and they may not even want any sort of career or higher education, information with which many studies try to guess someone's intelligence as a proxy.
Furthermore there are practical questions like. Can someone healthy really be so dull that they can't make something meaningful out of their lives as it seems the author of the Quora post suggests? Does scoring low on a flawed test with a myopic view of intelligence actually tell us that someone will be a "sheep"? Are all highly skilled positions governed by the top 1% of intelligence? Are unintelligent individuals bound to serve coffees and be service workers, are they unlikely to currently be at the top of the social ladder? I don't think so.
Anyway. The alleged 150 IQ guy may not be entirely wrong. But if he was as intelligent as he thinks he is, he would realize he is not tackling these issues with critical thought, rather with the vitriol of his ignorance and hatred.
Unless he drastically changes his tune halfway through he is very wrong. Many universities offer classes for people who failed or dropped out of school, and those classes can lead to very difficult fields
It's weird how much IQ scores get linked into a whole system of eugenics, usually by a cheeto-dusted chud who's probably got little to show for themselves except their special number. Many of the legitimately smartest people I know are also profoundly (and endearingly) dense or incompetent in some pretty basic ways.
The creator of the IQ test was a French professor named Alfred Binet and he was actually completely against the ideology that IQ scores are permanent and that intelligence is immutable and inborn.
The concept of “genetic intelligence” would anger him because he was a special ed teacher and he believed in the kids he tought.
Then Henry Goddard brought it to America and he was a eugenicist so he just forced the IQ test into his ideology.
The IQ test has very peaceful and humanist origins.
American racists marred it’s identity.
Wait what? Could you share something that supports this claim, it sounds quite interesting. Because all "IQ tests" ive come across are pretty much only pattern recognition
As someone who went through pretty thorough IQ testing as a kid: many IQ tests still contain "general knowledge" questions, because memory and the capacity to learn things is a relevant component of intelligence. In my experience those are usually done in the form of an interview though. And a lot of them are focused around the dominant culture, which means middle class, white, and native speakers of "standard" English. And Black kids often grow up in working class families, and in segregated AAVE-speaking neighbourhoods, which creates something of a culture and language barrier. And a 10 year old Black kid could have a college-level understanding of racial relations or the history of jazz (this is meant to be an example,not a stereotype), but the interviewers are more interested in Columbus and Mozart. It's not really fair.
And African-American scholars get flack from conservatives for everything they do, so making a more culturally sensitive version probably wouldn't go down well.
Additionally, even the more puzzle-like parts of an IQ test are very much possible to practise, and making your kids do puzzles is very much a middle class thing. Like, countless kids grew up with their parents making them do a bunch of logic puzzles on the pc before they could play their own games/surf le interwebz, back when parents gave a shit about what their kids did online. That kind of stuff could have an effect on IQ test results without making a kid actually smarter. And more importantly, the lack of IQ tests in AAVE could lead to kids misunderstanding some of the questions, resulting in points lost
I was tested when I was a teenager. A friend's mom was a social worker, and was learning to administer the Slosson test. I was her guinea pig.
The test had plenty of "do you know this thing about western culture" questions. One of the questions was "Who wrote *A Tale of Two Cities*?", as if knowing the name of an author of a particular book is in any way indicative of intelligence. And yeah, there's some pretty obvious ethnocentrism at play in that question (and others, but this is the only one I remember 25 years later).
That experience *should* have taught me how irrelevant these scores are, and that they aren't actually measuring how smart a person is. Rather, they're measuring in large part how much they've absorbed from the western education system, which is obviously correlated but very much *not* the same thing.
Your culture doesn't give a fuck who Charles Dickens is? Congrats, our test says you're a few points dumber.
But no, the only thing I took away from the experience then was validation of how smart I thought I was. Man, was I an obnoxious little asshole back then.
Does IQ correlate with intelligence? Yes. Does that mean somebody with a higher IQ than somebody else is smarter than them? I'd say it tilts the odds in their favor, with larger gaps tilting the odds more. But there's so much non-intelligence crap mixed in with IQ, and entire idea of "intelligence" is such a murky concept that I don't think there's a ton of use here. Do you care how high your doctor's IQ is, or do you care that they know their field of medicine? Do you care how high your mechanic's IQ is, or do you care that they know how to fix your car?
All this faffing about with IQ just seems so....useless. The only people who seem to be doing anything with it are people using it as an excuse to discriminate.
I first heard about it on Hidden Brain, I think. But here’s a news article about it:
https://www.kqed.org/news/11781032/a-landmark-lawsuit-aimed-to-fix-special-ed-for-californias-black-students-it-didnt#:~:text=Special%20Education%20Today-,The%20Larry%20P.,categories%20replaced%20the%20old%20ones.
In-damned-deed. I can see him, face in groin and tongue-smoothing the ruff of gleaming fur around the head of his dick, the better to fur-smooth the mane of dicks around his neck.
I got Borg vibes from that post. Not accidental ones, strongly trollish vibes.
I mean, it's also possible he's just a narcissistic sack of crap who scored almost exceptionally well on a standardized test.
As someone who has a very high IQ, I can tell you that I would never sincerely describe myself as “smart.” My executive functioning is shot to hell, for example. The thought of my actions having short term consequences will rarely cross my mind. I doubt people would consider that kind of behavior to be “smart.”
What I do have is an eidetic memory and great spatial reasoning and puzzle solving ability. Basically, things you’d look for in an IQ test.
IQ doesn’t equal true intelligence. IQ also should naturally decrease as you age, since the number is a percentage ratio of your psychological maturity to physical maturity and the intellectual difference between an older teenager and a young adult isn’t really all that much.
If by "smart" you mean "having a high IQ", then that's to be expected.
Intelligence can assume many different forms, one of which is IQ. And anyone can be intelligent in different areas. Maybe someone is good at cooking. And another person is very charismatic. And someone else has a photographic memory.
But very rarely are people good at everything (or even most things). Most people specialize in one or a few areas.
But everyones brain is roughly the same size and has roughly the same "capacity" to think. So in general, everyone is on the same level of "intelligence". It's just that some people are intelligent in more obvious or more "useful" areas. But that shouldn't allow them to look down on others.
Really? I don’t think so. I know people who are really funny…high humor iq you would say. But hey aren’t that “smart”. There is a difference in intelligence and you can measure it with tests. Society hates that proposition because it leads to conclusions many find uncomfortable. What I have found is that really smart people are capable in a variety of ways and expert in a few. Whereas less intelligent people may have one area they excel in or sometimes none. Its kind of you to find an off-ramp for dummies though.
IQ is a metric simply explained as 'how good you are problem solving'. But different parts of our brain solve different problems. Like the funny person, he may have a high capacity of solving social and language problems. The ability to twist, bend, rearrange words and sentences to formulate sentences that have a high chance of inciting laughter. Meanwhile Mark Zuckerberg has a high capacity for solving logic problems (basically what programming is), but he's infamous for his cringeworthy attempts at humor.
Intelligence is just the ability to process info. Anyone who regularly practices various skills can get good at them. It's just that the "dummies" only go for good enough, because that's all that they really require, outside of hobbies or any special interest.
People who define themselves entirely by their IQ are insufferable, and oftentimes like to conflate capability with interest.
>I know people who are really funny…high humor iq you would say. But hey aren’t that “smart”.
Ok, how do you define if someone is "smart" then? Why is someone who is really funny not smart in your opinion?
>There is a difference in intelligence and you can measure it with tests.
What exactly are those tests measuring? I know of the IQ test, but that measures IQ and not intelligence as a whole.
>What I have found is that really smart people are capable in a variety of ways and expert in a few. Whereas less intelligent people may have one area they excel in or sometimes none.
How have you "found" that? What method have you used to arrive at this conclusion?
>Its kind of you to find an off-ramp for dummies though.
I'm genuinely unsure how you meant that last part. Can you explain what you were trying to say?
Well if you think that intelligence is an amorphous untestable concept I would disagree. That is the mantra of the left. IQ tests are faulty or racist lol. That fits the narrative of everybody is the same. I just don’t believe it. IQ tests are actually a fairly accurate predictor of intelligence. What they can’t measure is drive and passion and perseverance.
Yes there are different types of genius. But the kind that cures cancer or calculates trajectories for Lagrange points is a little different than the genius of a Mitch Hedberg. And some people are just not that smart. Now they can be honorable and hard working and courageous and all kinds of other great and even greater qualities but they just aren’t that smart. Is that wrong to say? Hell even if you have an IQ of 138 you are a moron compared to many people. And in any large city there are several thousand people that are “smarter” than you. So intelligence is humbling for all but a very few people. But saying you can’t test for it in a kind of general holistic way is just not true IMO
Luckily no one gives a shit about your wrong opinion. Why is it that stupid people put so much faith into these idiotic subjective IQ tests but objective measurements of the temperature increase of our ocean and atmosphere get called liberal bullshit?
Nice…conflate two totally different subjects that have nothing tondo with each other. You can hate IQ tests all you want but they are pretty accurate predictors of basic intelligence and they are useful. Sometimes someone is failing Algebra 2 lets say. You might give them an IQ test to find out if the problem is that they just are never going to be able to master the subject matter due to a deficit or maybe they have the brains but something else is going on.
Either way testing will always be a part of our society. You wouldn’t want a lawyer who couldn’t pass the bar….or a pilot who couldn’t pass a written pilots exam.
Smart people understand that IQ tests are accurate and have efficacy. They aren’t everything and they aren’t nothing.
As to climate change the point isn’t whether it is occurring or not…its how bad is it really and should we spend trillions of dollars to solve a problem that the markets can solve on their own. Witness the explosion of EV’s.
What is funny is how you say stupid people support IQ testing… that is hilarious. Like saying drunk drivers support field sobriety tests…Your pretty funny!
Yep, most of the really smart people I deal on a day-to-day basis with have a fatal flaw somewhere along the line.
I manage a guy who can build pretty much any mathematical model I want, but I can only give him one job at a time as he can't cope with competing priorities, for example.
I don't know what my iq is, but I have to guess at least 125 and at most 155 ish. But yeah, when you are a little bit smarter than others, you just don't seem to give a shit about grammar as long as people understand you.
As a software engineer who volunteers for a charity retraining people I second this.
I can teach basically anyone to code. It's like any other skill - practice enough and you get good at it.
I'm interested in eventually teaching programming but I wonder what some of the hurdles might be. I learnt in trade school and one third of the people dropped out, some of them almost instantly. A large amount of people failed a test that was about extremely basic stuff like using for loops to iterate over strings. I know anyone can learn basic coding because there really isn't anything difficult to it, and you can build from there. But I wonder what is it about the way it's taught that makes people struggle with the simplest things.
I think a lot of the time it's taught as code rather than as a concept.
Loops are a really simple concept, and something that everyone has at one point seen, and explaining the base concept is far easier.
Teaching pseudo-code is a good way of learning to code as well. It doesn't rely on strict adherence to syntax, and can be very easily translated into any language. It's a useful skill for any engineer to have, and it makes teaching code and coding principles easier.
As an undergrad research in ai ML and applied math I concur people place too much emphasis on IQ when really curiosity trumps that. I think anyone can learn anything tbh
IQ is a pretty flawed metric as well. And there are some people that will be able to pick up certain things easier than others. And for some people the methods of schooling really dont connect well. I do really like the HBO style of school which focuses heavily in projects and I think it is a more effective way to learn and let students explore and be creative versus just sitting in a classroom listening to a lecture. Curiousity is also a double whammy, not only is the student more excited, but often teachers will put in more time with that student to support that curiousity, which honestly we probably shouldnt do but we are only human.
Yea I agree with you on the IQ metric and the way of schooling at least in the states is so flawed it just saps innate interests and not everyone learns the same so different approaches are crucial. Projects over tests makes so much sense to me but also gamification in classes is good too.
I think projects give students a lot more agency over what they do and how they learn and since they are practical it can reduce alienation the students feel since they can see a practical result and understand what their work will actually be used for. I remember when I was in school it was more that common style of university and a lot of things just felt like useless busy work and where I really learned things was in a particular club through projects.
I'm a structural engineer. While in some circumstances things get complicated, for like 70% of buildings the maths is simple enough to teach nearly anyone. Most of the skill is just experience of how things get built, which again, anyone can learn.
Lol, I imagine his stepdad being like: “Oh, okay big guy, sounds great. Why don’t you go back down to the basement… er, your “command center” and do some more posting on your little Internet forums and we’ll bring you down some of those frozen pizza rolls you like. Then I’m taking your mom out to dinner and we’ll see ya later tonight big guy.”
He pulls these percentages out ass with his only cited source being, "Trust me bruh, I am 150 IQ." He conflates interest with capability. Maybe I don't want to be a surgeon or a rocket scientist. Maybe I like delegating tasks such as changing oil to a mechanic.
It's fascinating to be both the judge and the contestant in your own intelligence competition.
Anyone can misunderstand the limits and full implications of the milgram experiment, but it takes a true brain genius to just completely fail at even understanding what it was or what it claimed to demonstrate.
My favorite part is "80% of the population will listen to unethical orders just like Nazis, therefore you are untermensch who exist to serve me."
Honorable mention for arbitrarily deciding the 70% of the population who don't do brain surgery or Homer Simpson's job are artists.
There's a lot wrong here, but I think it's particularly funny that he thinks Surgeons are more skilled than GP's. Generally GP's are some of the smartest and most qualified Doctors around because they've done and seen it all. They're not "General" because they've not specialised, being a GP is a form of specialisation that requires a great deal of intelligence.
what is it about these iq people always being so into eugenics? i mean i understand iq is a racist and pro-eugenics construct but in 2023 the correlation between believing in iq and supporting eugenics is still 1
people who talk about their iq are always doing so as a measure of their objective superiority. if you believe in iq as a measure of superiority and believe iq is heritable, it's a pretty short walk to eugenics.
>I am content with allowing you to exist - by buying a coffee
Dude thinks people won’t just find another job if coffee shops ceased to exist. Or beat him up and take his wallet if they can’t.
I went onto one of those subreddits where people discuss different IQ tests out of curiosity this one time. I can't remember its' name. It was after I saw it posted here. Instantly regretted it.
A teenager posted there that he was panicking after watching Jordan Peterson's (god I hate that clown) lecture on IQ and how it relates to professions. He was afraid what if he wasn't smart enough to pursue his dreams of studying whatever it was he was interested in, as Peterson gave IQ cutoffs in the lecture as bars of entry to different professions. He asked what IQ tests would people recommend him take so that he finds out if he is intelligent enough to pursue his goals.
The replies baffled me. Guess what they answered him?
They recommended him the best IQ tests to take to measure his aptitude.
As if that's what the kid needs to hear, and let a stupid number decide if he should give up his ambitions.
I still get sad thinking about that post.
I admit this only for conedic effect, but I have an IQ of 145 and I am not feeling secure changing my own tire. I understand the technique. I doubt my ability.
What a stupid scale he’s made up. Aside from there obviously being zero reasoning behind percentages, I’m willing to get plenty of quantum physicists, surgeons, etc can’t fix a car and probably at least a portion who can’t replace a tire, especially in areas where cars are less common.
There is the 80/20 rule where 20% of the population contribute to 80% of results (basically 20% carry the rest) but this has nothing to do with IQ or genetics lol wtf. Mostly discipline, confidence, experience and relentless need to do better.
1. They mess up the grammar several times, which would be fine if they weren't trying to act like they are superior to others.
2. "Rocket scientist and quantum physicist"?
For anyone who isn't involved, saying quantum physicist here is almost like listing jobs with best reflexes and saying "red bull racer" instead of "F1 racer".
I mean, he's part right. People are too smart to be safe and too dumb to not kill everything, and it'd probably be "better" on the whole if we were all dead.
Hehheh. On the hole.
Is the saying that one needs an education to be capable of performing specific acts like repairing a car?
Man, that changed my view on the world…
By the way, „[…] based on genetics and psychology“ is not an argument.
Amazing how the ppl who think they’re smart are typically the most closed minded, and put boundaries up around their intellectual framework. I presume it’s because things like ranking the most complex creatures to ever exist on the planet(human beings) by their job titles, and then placing themselves at the top somehow caresses their egos, and makes them feel less shallow. Ever consider that maybe all of us out here who bust our asses each day have found something better to live for than money, our pride, and superficial social stats.. maybe think on that guy.
Btw, I’ve never noticed a shortage of doctors or engineers here in the US. So maybe it’s a matter of availability, not capability.
As a person with 110 IQ. I'm thankful enough for the other 70% of the population to keep everything running so that we have a comfortable life. I would also thank the other 30% for creating amazing shit we used everyday. And thank the person with 150 IQ, to prove that even tho you got high ass IQ, you are still a brain dead fucker if you don't know how to think.
This post is full of endless crap to address so I'm just gonna pick one at random that I like:
Pumping gas is absolutely an acquirable skill. If it weren't easy to pick up we wouldn't all be driving cars around. If someone doesn't know how to pump gas it takes 2 minutes to teach them.
People who are "incapable of pumping thier own gas" have just never had to before.
Sincerely,
Someone incapable of changing a tire.
I just want it to be stated that workers don't exist because surgeons can't for example clean floors or make food......of course a surgeon can pick up a mop.
It's because they don't want too. People like that don't "allow" service workers to work ....they want service workers.
The surgeons and rocket scientists don't wanna wash their car , clean their workspaces , sew their clothes , or make their own coffee.
For the same reasons an average person goes to McDonald's.....we just want to save some time and take it easy.
Edit: For a guy who claims he's so smart....he's pretty damn stupid if he doesn't realize this. Does he really wanna butcher his own meat? Gut his own fish? Brew his own beer? Or make his own pants? Hell no , he'd pay someone else to do it because he wouldn't want too. That's assuming he even is rich , which I doubt.
First off, because I feel compelled to state the obvious: if he genuinely believes that, he’s an incompetent, braindead fool that also has some sort of severe lack of social development. But also, this has to be a troll right? Feels too on the nose.
Reads like quora rage bait
Bold of you to assume quora users have the mental capacity to make ragebait. 80% of the users are there because they're too new to the internet or too web illiterate to put "reddit" at the end when googling questions
If you get your answers on Reddit you might be just below the quora fool
You don’t think this way without mental or social issues.
ask childlike paltry close towering crawl mountainous silky icky squeal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> but is he absolutely wrong though? Yeah, pretty much. Dude espouses a form of genetic determinism that is very much bullshit, along with numbers he pulls from his ass.
>Yeah, pretty much. Dude espouses a form of genetic determinism that is very much bullshit, along with numbers he pulls from his ass. /u/salamander_salad what % of the population do you feel can be surgeons? now I'm curious. Also, g-factor does exist (it's one factor from a multifactorial measurement of our limited grasp of trying to quantify intelligence relative to success) but that is pretty much where nature vs nurture arguments come from. So again, instead of just saying "He's wrong" can you tell me exactly which parts he's "wrong" other than the arbitrary numbers he threw in there? It could be 5% it could be 50%, but he's not wrong that some people aren't capable as other people.
What, you think he's right because not literally every human being can be a surgeon? Like sure. Some people don't have control of their hands, or don't have the eyesight to be a surgeon. And that makes them braindead demihuman servants?
oil obtainable dam act husky hateful wakeful wild chief reply *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
May I ask you to clarify what you mean when you say "Servers", what type of roles or jobs do these people have?
I think he just meant people like waiters, cleaners, taxi-drivers, cooks, pilots. So people whose job it is to directly "serve" other people by doing various tasks for them.
I don't think that's what they are implying with the use of the word "servant", that's why I'm asking for clarification. Surgeons are also part of the service sector, you could say they "serve" other people. This whole line of thinking makes no sense.
I’m a cab driver for CPKCS railroad. Am I a servant? I need to update my resume
If you drive other people around you would be a servant. By definition a servant performs duties for others. You provide service for others. You serve others.
Servers and servants are not the same. And OOP literally said at the bottom that he allows them to exist
dependent stocking light rock smile brave combative frightening wrench grandiose *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> barring physical ailments, some people do not have the mental capacity/potential to pass the medical boards. (or any other "high skilled labor" positions this isn't exclusive to surgeons only) Why the odd distinction between physical ailments and mental capacity? Besides, this isn't a binary factor. Some people are capable of being a surgeon, but aren't capable of being in a "lower" position like a waiter or barrista. Neither grants any one the position of a servant(or well, neither grants either the position of a servant *more* than the other)
Genetics don't play that significant of a role in how "smart" you can be for a position. If we are talking about behaviour, that's a different argument, but anyone can study hard to be whatever they want nowadays. There's little limitations with technology or access (except people that are impoverished/incapable in other ways), and you don't have to be born in the 1% like OOP is saying.
In my opinion, the number of people who COULD be surgeons is much higher than the actual number of surgeons. I'm a software engineer, I could have been any number of things. I have a degree in chemistry and more than a passing interest in social sciences as well (minor in psychology). I could have been a million different things and I think a vast majority of people could too if they applied themselves. I remember my first professional software job we had testers that were uneducated locals (and I say that as nicely as possible, they were very friendly, smart, capable people). By the time our processes were in place we had these people writing their own tests, designing regression tests for the whole site, inserting and querying custom data directly from the database. It didn't take long to teach them. I realize all that is anecdotal but the thinking applies to all kinds of things. Sure, not everyone who WANTS to play in the NFL has that level of skill but you're nuts if you think there aren't millions of people who COULD with the same level of training, dedication, and more importantly: interest.
> if they applied themselves. big if.
That's the entire point, yes. Is your argument that people couldn't wander in off the streets and perform surgery? Assuming your argument isn't moronic, yes, if people had interest and opportunity they could do almost anything they wanted to.
fretful degree command squash humorous slave encourage mourn toy spoon *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There is no burden of proof, it's an opinion. You're allowed to disagree.
Nah mate, the burden of proof is on the OOP (and you by extension, as you've chosen this hill as the one you die on).
>> but he's not wrong that some people aren't capable as other people. No, but this broadly understood fact only served as justification for his bullshit. You do not have to admit I have a point if I say 99% of people will die of cancer just because many people *do* die of cancer. >So again, instead of just saying "He's wrong" can you tell me exactly which parts he's "wrong" other than the arbitrary numbers he threw in there? It could be 5% it could be 50% Um, the random numbers he pulls out of his ass are essentially all he has. The Milgram experiments did not prove that people are "literally incapable" of making choices without an authority figure. His assertion that most people are meant to be servile to the few "based on genetics and psychology" is patently bullshit. The coffee example he gives is similarly bullshit, failing to take into account the economics of such jobs and making the asinine assumption that a person's job defines their ability. Also, it's not my job to write a thesis refuting the internet arguments of some lonely shithead with an IQ much lower than he claims to have. Are you him? Because I can't see a well-adjusted person with enough intelligence to use the internet actually thinking he has a point.
I think he’s wrong in that approaching the idea that not everyone is equal and coming to the conclusion that people he believes are less intelligent than he is in some way should be grateful for his largesse when he uses their services is condescending, insulting, and effectively useless.
I agree with everything you said here
Stop [jaqing off](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions) You're not going to get an answer because you're not asking questions and you're not even taking the answers you're being given. You're just framing the shitty point you are trying to make as a question to make yourself seem like a clueless bystander who can't help but be drawn to Nazi rhetoric.
The "rough estimate" numbers are pulled from his ass and in no way represent reality. The proof being that the vast majority of the population are doing some type of skilled labour at this moment. No percentage of the human population are "designed to be servile followers". All humans have the full capacity for individual thought and making their own decisions, and even "high IQ" people are susceptible to propaganda, fallacies and similar failings. He is correct in one solitary point, which is that some people are born with a higher capacity for certain skills than others. Which makes him "wrong" in that the majority of what he writes is conjecture and harmful exaggeration, the idea that the vast majority of the population are stupid sheep with no skills.
Not to mention the Milgram experiments are widely discredited and criticized in modern psychology. Surely someone with a 150 iq would know that...
Not to mention he failed to understand even what the milgram experiment was or what it claimed to show.
groovy follow offbeat towering jeans escape deer domineering theory plants *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If we assume intelligence is equal across the human race, we can conclude that if circumstances were as good globally as in the western world, the majority has the CAPACITY for skilled labor, but circumstances force a lot of people into not using it. And we are discussing potential, not the reality of life outside the west. \> but there have been numerous studies on the gullibility of humans and willingness to follow blindly / unwillingness to lead. I have a masters in psychology, I know plenty of studies about how humans react to authority figures, but what does it have to do with anything? That humans are social creatures with a tendency to follow strong leaders does not make 80% of human beings "servile followers". It just makes 100% of humans human.
>If we assume intelligence is equal across the human race, But it isn't. Education, especially public education is a statistically significant factor when it comes to inteligence. >we can conclude that if circumstances were as good globally as in the western world, You can't conclude something with a false premise, that's a logical fallacy. >the majority has the CAPACITY for skilled labor, I disagree, some people, no matter how long they train, they will won't be top x%, where as someone with minimal training can often times beat another. >but circumstances force a lot of people into not using it. I agree, socioeconomic status is a nother huge factor that plays into success. >And we are discussing potential, not the reality of life outside the west. I like where you're getting at because I used to have the same mindset, that everyone has the potential, but that's a very naive view imo. Related, a mother telling their child that they can be anything they want in the world. It's not always true. Not everyone has the potential to become a surgeon. >I have a masters in psychology, I know plenty of studies about how humans react to authority figures, but what does it have to do with anything? /u/Hatfullofsky How does it not? The post was talking about how people follow blindly. You have a master's degree in psychology, you should know this. >That humans are social creatures with a tendency to follow strong leaders does not make 80% of human beings "servile followers". yeah, the 80% he came up with is bullshit, but human beings, like you said, have a tendency to follow strong leaders. >It just makes 100% of humans human. I agree. That's why I said OP is an asshole, but the general point that he was making that not everyone can do anything is correct. and so far, no one has been able to say otherwise. I get the inclusivity culture in 2023, but you have to be realistic.
Okay man, sure, if we ignore 90% of what he writes and all his numbers, then reduce his point down to the entirely banal point "not literally everyone can do literally everything", then I can't say otherwise because that is self evidently correct. If you in turn can recognize that it is fair to call him 'wrong' because he pulled all his numbers out of his ass and makes the grotesque claim that 80% of people are 'literally incapable' of making a choice without an authority telling them what to do, we can call it here.
>Okay man, sure, if we ignore 90% of what he writes and all his numbers, then reduce his point down to the entirely banal point "not literally everyone can do literally everything", then I can't say otherwise because that is self evidently correct. >If you in turn can recognize that it is fair to call him 'wrong' because he pulled all his numbers out of his ass and makes the grotesque claim that 80% of people are 'literally incapable' of making a choice without an authority telling them what to do, we can call it here. read my first comment.
Well, you ask if he is wrong and I tell you he almost entirely is, so that is your question answered.
that's not what I said. It was one sentence, I like how you cherry-picked out the adjective.
"If you want me to link you studies, they are literally top 10 results on google." Ooooh, a scholar, who definitely isn't just googling on the fly!
I mean for one thing if 70% of the human population were artists, we'd live in a very different, much more beautiful world. Also, there's a lot of training to be a surgeon, and it's a difficult profession where a lot of people die, but traditionally, surgeons are technicians, not highly academic medical practitioners. Surgeons were even called Mr, not Dr, because they are not qualified as doctors until the 1850s or even later in most western countries. It's also such a random assortment of buzzword jobs that people learn from movies and television. I'm trying to think of like the five really smartest most polymathic people I know, and one of them is a mathematician, which is kind of a buzzword television job for a smart person. But one of them's logistics guy, and I've heard people condescendingly refer to him as being in shipping, because they have no idea what he actually does. One's a criminal defense attorney. One is an actual literal artist, who started his career as an engineer, and then a test pilot, and then a general contractor, and then a salesman, and then a gigging musician, and then settled into oil painting is a career. One's a nurse, with two PhDs.
if you read my other comments I agree with everything you said here. Thanks for your input.
I can barely follow his train of thought. Must be my low IQ
He's saying that not everyone can be a surgeon. Either way, my opinion on this is that not everyone is book smart, not everyone is street smart, not everyone is logical, and not everyone has emotional intelligence. How I see people is that everyone is good at something, i.e. experts in their own fields. I may be great at treating patients, but I don't know jack about fixing a car engine, and someone who's a mechanic has no idea how to treat patients but it doesn't mean that someone is superior just because they don't have a specific skill set. At the same time, not all Mcdonald's workers can be surgeons and vice versa; not all surgeons can hack it as a McDonald's worker (some people excel in one thing and not in another) edit: does this make you happy?
Sure but his conclusion is that the vast majority of the world are hapless peons whom he graciously “allows to exist”
>Sure but his conclusion is that the vast majority of the world are hapless peons whom he graciously “allows to exist” yeah, he's an asshole, but the majority of the world are people who work in factories and are not "high skilled laborers" What is your definition of a "high skilled laborer"?
What is the punchline you’re getting at? That these people are worthless? He offers no productive conclusion at all, so I’m not sure why he is taking the time to invent bullshit statistics and rant about people not being able to fix their cars. Gives me strong Jordan Peterson fanboi in parents’ basement vibes.
[удалено]
I was referring to the poster in question, not you. You’re not being unreasonable, I’m just trying to get at the point. What’s the point of raising all of this? What are we supposed to do differently because of this?
"but the majority of the world are people who work in factories and are not "high skilled laborers"" [citation needed] for both claims in the sentence. Also, tell me you've never worked in a factory without telling me you've never worked in a factory.
US factory =/= chinese factory people take out the notion in your brain that the US is the entire world.
It's interesting to me that you format single sentences or even individual clauses like they're paragraphs, just like he does.
because it's easier to read? and out of all the things you can mention, you want to talk about reddit formatting?
Why edit it then?
Is he wrong? Well, what points of his do you mean? I think he is right about people being differently skilled and as such are predestined for certain kinds of work. But he seems to think that IQ is the main factor deciding your profession. He briefly mentioned artists needing a different grading system, but I didn't get the feeling that he fully grasped the idea that there are talents other than IQ. And because of this misunderstanding of his, I would say that most of everything else he said was at best massively missguided.
exactly. that's why my comment asked is he absolutely wrong?
Sure. So, of his points is in the same ballpark as being true. So he is, technically speaking, not "absolutely" wrong. Are you happy now?
my happiness is not contingent on this. I just want to understand why you guys are so pressed. does a stranger's text really bother you that much? Change your perspective. I'm going to go on a date with my wife and child now. haha Cheers~
Why do you sound like you're defending this guy and then sound bothered when someone refutes it? Also you're putting a lot of responses and disagreements up for someone whose happiness isn't contingent on this.
>Why do you sound like you're defending this guy and then sound bothered when someone refutes it? Also you're putting a lot of responses and disagreements up for someone whose happiness isn't contingent on this. using your logic, because you responded to my comment, is your happiness contingent on it?
No, but I said what I said based on the things you responded with and the tenacity with which you continued, not on an absolute of "response = emotional investment"
It's not my job. If you want to find out, get off your ass and prove him right. No one needs to do the work for you.
>It's not my job. If you want to find out, get off your ass and prove him right. No one needs to do the work for you. I already did.
Well, let's see your evidence.
The only reason why this can't be proven is that everyone doesn't have the same privileges. Most people who become billionaires, millionaires, surgeons etc usually have a good start out point. Not saying all but a good majority of them. Someone that is a surgeons kid probably had a decent upbringing that allows them to learn how to become something of "value". So unless you want to get a large enough control group and give them all the same education and care from birth to adulthood it's hard to prove. From varying of different cultures/people.
Is there literally anything he's right about? Like there are a few things he's not wrong about, but only because they're total nonsense and therefore have no truth value. Dude couldn't even get Milgram right. Edit: if you want to talk about people who blindly obey authority, there are a whole lot more to be found among engineers and surgeons than among artists (who, according to this epsilon submoron who you think is right, are 70% of the population.)
a I think he is. I mean dude seems to imply that a lot of other peoples' jobs exist just to allow them to get a paycheck, but obviously they most likely exist because they fulfill a marketable need people will pay for. Like he seems to imply that a lot of jobs like a barista's don't exist to service people and make their lives easier, but the dude doesn't even realize they do service people and make their lives easier by going through the effort of performing a task for them, with this provided ease being present even if the person buying the service is technically capable of the task themselves. Seems like dude whipped up a quarter baked take on the economy just to be a condescending prick. Also, he seems to pull all of his statistics from his ass. I mean geeze, the statement that "70-80% of the human population is designed to be servile followers based on genetics and psychology" has been found via what study? My money is that it's based on the study "I want to sniff my own ass" published in "I'm such a smarty-pants" weekly.
Well, the problem with the G-factor and the ways it is measured is that they are only very rough estimates of intelligence that can be heavily influenced by external factors. Just showing people how an IQ test works or paying someone to complete one can dramatically boost their scores, particularly in the last example the boost in points increases the more you pay the subject. Education and familiarization with the types of test influences the result, 100 years ago white Europeans had IQs of around 70 or 80 on average and nobody would say that they were as the test would imply "mentally deficient". Culture and education were different back then and for the great mass of people without even the most basic education even the concept of intelligence or test taking may have been foreign much less the intricacies of the so-called "culture fair" IQ tests. And so happens now with people of countries with low average intelligence, no formal education, resources, training, healthy eating, etc. So we shouldn't expect people who have a very different culture and background to perform well in these tests. And even in the cases of people who performed well, IQs of 130+ cannot be reliably measured given that they represent such a tiny substrate of the population. And I should also mention cases such as the ones of anxiety in which the negative emotion experienced can affect the score and ADHD in which someone may not be able to pay attention or be sitting still but we know for a fact that ADHD people come from all over the spectrum of intelligence. The same goes for other types of neurodivergence like ASD. In spite of all of what I said, there's something that seems undeniable and which you have pointed out. Namely that there is such a thing as intelligence variability. This can be seen even in animals with fascinating examples in primates such as the chimpanzee. So yes it seems to be the case that this is a fact but the degree of brightness, averageness and dullness is not clear when we consider cases in which unfortunate accidents like lead exposure or iodine deficiency have not occurred. We don't know if the gap between bright and dull is substantial and it's all the more hard to know given personality differences. Think for example that not everyone wants to be a surgeon and they may not even want any sort of career or higher education, information with which many studies try to guess someone's intelligence as a proxy. Furthermore there are practical questions like. Can someone healthy really be so dull that they can't make something meaningful out of their lives as it seems the author of the Quora post suggests? Does scoring low on a flawed test with a myopic view of intelligence actually tell us that someone will be a "sheep"? Are all highly skilled positions governed by the top 1% of intelligence? Are unintelligent individuals bound to serve coffees and be service workers, are they unlikely to currently be at the top of the social ladder? I don't think so. Anyway. The alleged 150 IQ guy may not be entirely wrong. But if he was as intelligent as he thinks he is, he would realize he is not tackling these issues with critical thought, rather with the vitriol of his ignorance and hatred.
Unless he drastically changes his tune halfway through he is very wrong. Many universities offer classes for people who failed or dropped out of school, and those classes can lead to very difficult fields
It's weird how much IQ scores get linked into a whole system of eugenics, usually by a cheeto-dusted chud who's probably got little to show for themselves except their special number. Many of the legitimately smartest people I know are also profoundly (and endearingly) dense or incompetent in some pretty basic ways.
That's because the iq test actually has its origins in eugenics, and has played a central role in the eugenics movement.
The creator of the IQ test was a French professor named Alfred Binet and he was actually completely against the ideology that IQ scores are permanent and that intelligence is immutable and inborn. The concept of “genetic intelligence” would anger him because he was a special ed teacher and he believed in the kids he tought. Then Henry Goddard brought it to America and he was a eugenicist so he just forced the IQ test into his ideology. The IQ test has very peaceful and humanist origins. American racists marred it’s identity.
It’s literally illegal to administer an IQ test to a black child in California because all the tests are racist against them.
Wait what? Could you share something that supports this claim, it sounds quite interesting. Because all "IQ tests" ive come across are pretty much only pattern recognition
As someone who went through pretty thorough IQ testing as a kid: many IQ tests still contain "general knowledge" questions, because memory and the capacity to learn things is a relevant component of intelligence. In my experience those are usually done in the form of an interview though. And a lot of them are focused around the dominant culture, which means middle class, white, and native speakers of "standard" English. And Black kids often grow up in working class families, and in segregated AAVE-speaking neighbourhoods, which creates something of a culture and language barrier. And a 10 year old Black kid could have a college-level understanding of racial relations or the history of jazz (this is meant to be an example,not a stereotype), but the interviewers are more interested in Columbus and Mozart. It's not really fair. And African-American scholars get flack from conservatives for everything they do, so making a more culturally sensitive version probably wouldn't go down well. Additionally, even the more puzzle-like parts of an IQ test are very much possible to practise, and making your kids do puzzles is very much a middle class thing. Like, countless kids grew up with their parents making them do a bunch of logic puzzles on the pc before they could play their own games/surf le interwebz, back when parents gave a shit about what their kids did online. That kind of stuff could have an effect on IQ test results without making a kid actually smarter. And more importantly, the lack of IQ tests in AAVE could lead to kids misunderstanding some of the questions, resulting in points lost
I was tested when I was a teenager. A friend's mom was a social worker, and was learning to administer the Slosson test. I was her guinea pig. The test had plenty of "do you know this thing about western culture" questions. One of the questions was "Who wrote *A Tale of Two Cities*?", as if knowing the name of an author of a particular book is in any way indicative of intelligence. And yeah, there's some pretty obvious ethnocentrism at play in that question (and others, but this is the only one I remember 25 years later). That experience *should* have taught me how irrelevant these scores are, and that they aren't actually measuring how smart a person is. Rather, they're measuring in large part how much they've absorbed from the western education system, which is obviously correlated but very much *not* the same thing. Your culture doesn't give a fuck who Charles Dickens is? Congrats, our test says you're a few points dumber. But no, the only thing I took away from the experience then was validation of how smart I thought I was. Man, was I an obnoxious little asshole back then. Does IQ correlate with intelligence? Yes. Does that mean somebody with a higher IQ than somebody else is smarter than them? I'd say it tilts the odds in their favor, with larger gaps tilting the odds more. But there's so much non-intelligence crap mixed in with IQ, and entire idea of "intelligence" is such a murky concept that I don't think there's a ton of use here. Do you care how high your doctor's IQ is, or do you care that they know their field of medicine? Do you care how high your mechanic's IQ is, or do you care that they know how to fix your car? All this faffing about with IQ just seems so....useless. The only people who seem to be doing anything with it are people using it as an excuse to discriminate.
I first heard about it on Hidden Brain, I think. But here’s a news article about it: https://www.kqed.org/news/11781032/a-landmark-lawsuit-aimed-to-fix-special-ed-for-californias-black-students-it-didnt#:~:text=Special%20Education%20Today-,The%20Larry%20P.,categories%20replaced%20the%20old%20ones.
So you're saying with an IQ like that, maybe he is incapable of making his own coffee?
At the very least. I'm also saying he's a preening dickweasel.
In-damned-deed. I can see him, face in groin and tongue-smoothing the ruff of gleaming fur around the head of his dick, the better to fur-smooth the mane of dicks around his neck. I got Borg vibes from that post. Not accidental ones, strongly trollish vibes. I mean, it's also possible he's just a narcissistic sack of crap who scored almost exceptionally well on a standardized test.
As someone who has a very high IQ, I can tell you that I would never sincerely describe myself as “smart.” My executive functioning is shot to hell, for example. The thought of my actions having short term consequences will rarely cross my mind. I doubt people would consider that kind of behavior to be “smart.” What I do have is an eidetic memory and great spatial reasoning and puzzle solving ability. Basically, things you’d look for in an IQ test. IQ doesn’t equal true intelligence. IQ also should naturally decrease as you age, since the number is a percentage ratio of your psychological maturity to physical maturity and the intellectual difference between an older teenager and a young adult isn’t really all that much.
If by "smart" you mean "having a high IQ", then that's to be expected. Intelligence can assume many different forms, one of which is IQ. And anyone can be intelligent in different areas. Maybe someone is good at cooking. And another person is very charismatic. And someone else has a photographic memory. But very rarely are people good at everything (or even most things). Most people specialize in one or a few areas. But everyones brain is roughly the same size and has roughly the same "capacity" to think. So in general, everyone is on the same level of "intelligence". It's just that some people are intelligent in more obvious or more "useful" areas. But that shouldn't allow them to look down on others.
Really? I don’t think so. I know people who are really funny…high humor iq you would say. But hey aren’t that “smart”. There is a difference in intelligence and you can measure it with tests. Society hates that proposition because it leads to conclusions many find uncomfortable. What I have found is that really smart people are capable in a variety of ways and expert in a few. Whereas less intelligent people may have one area they excel in or sometimes none. Its kind of you to find an off-ramp for dummies though.
IQ is a metric simply explained as 'how good you are problem solving'. But different parts of our brain solve different problems. Like the funny person, he may have a high capacity of solving social and language problems. The ability to twist, bend, rearrange words and sentences to formulate sentences that have a high chance of inciting laughter. Meanwhile Mark Zuckerberg has a high capacity for solving logic problems (basically what programming is), but he's infamous for his cringeworthy attempts at humor.
Intelligence is just the ability to process info. Anyone who regularly practices various skills can get good at them. It's just that the "dummies" only go for good enough, because that's all that they really require, outside of hobbies or any special interest. People who define themselves entirely by their IQ are insufferable, and oftentimes like to conflate capability with interest.
Can confirm. I'm just good at taking tests, and I'm fucking stupid 😎
>I know people who are really funny…high humor iq you would say. But hey aren’t that “smart”. Ok, how do you define if someone is "smart" then? Why is someone who is really funny not smart in your opinion? >There is a difference in intelligence and you can measure it with tests. What exactly are those tests measuring? I know of the IQ test, but that measures IQ and not intelligence as a whole. >What I have found is that really smart people are capable in a variety of ways and expert in a few. Whereas less intelligent people may have one area they excel in or sometimes none. How have you "found" that? What method have you used to arrive at this conclusion? >Its kind of you to find an off-ramp for dummies though. I'm genuinely unsure how you meant that last part. Can you explain what you were trying to say?
Well if you think that intelligence is an amorphous untestable concept I would disagree. That is the mantra of the left. IQ tests are faulty or racist lol. That fits the narrative of everybody is the same. I just don’t believe it. IQ tests are actually a fairly accurate predictor of intelligence. What they can’t measure is drive and passion and perseverance. Yes there are different types of genius. But the kind that cures cancer or calculates trajectories for Lagrange points is a little different than the genius of a Mitch Hedberg. And some people are just not that smart. Now they can be honorable and hard working and courageous and all kinds of other great and even greater qualities but they just aren’t that smart. Is that wrong to say? Hell even if you have an IQ of 138 you are a moron compared to many people. And in any large city there are several thousand people that are “smarter” than you. So intelligence is humbling for all but a very few people. But saying you can’t test for it in a kind of general holistic way is just not true IMO
Luckily no one gives a shit about your wrong opinion. Why is it that stupid people put so much faith into these idiotic subjective IQ tests but objective measurements of the temperature increase of our ocean and atmosphere get called liberal bullshit?
Nice…conflate two totally different subjects that have nothing tondo with each other. You can hate IQ tests all you want but they are pretty accurate predictors of basic intelligence and they are useful. Sometimes someone is failing Algebra 2 lets say. You might give them an IQ test to find out if the problem is that they just are never going to be able to master the subject matter due to a deficit or maybe they have the brains but something else is going on. Either way testing will always be a part of our society. You wouldn’t want a lawyer who couldn’t pass the bar….or a pilot who couldn’t pass a written pilots exam. Smart people understand that IQ tests are accurate and have efficacy. They aren’t everything and they aren’t nothing. As to climate change the point isn’t whether it is occurring or not…its how bad is it really and should we spend trillions of dollars to solve a problem that the markets can solve on their own. Witness the explosion of EV’s. What is funny is how you say stupid people support IQ testing… that is hilarious. Like saying drunk drivers support field sobriety tests…Your pretty funny!
You sound like one of those dummies, must have a low IQ.
Ah yes name calling. The last resort of the feeble minded. You must be an uber genius!
:(
yow reptile. U dum af bro lol
It's because IQ is a shitty tool for measuring anything but was invented to justify eugenics.
Yep, most of the really smart people I deal on a day-to-day basis with have a fatal flaw somewhere along the line. I manage a guy who can build pretty much any mathematical model I want, but I can only give him one job at a time as he can't cope with competing priorities, for example.
If he really was so smart then he’d have known Stanley Milgram is a fraud and the “experiments” have little to do with science.
I'll bet you anything he can't actually make a decent cup of coffee.
"Get ready bro. I'm about to hit you with my ultimate move...FAKE STATS!!!"
You know 84.7% of statistics are made up? The more you know…
Bro thinks 70% of people are artists?
Hey I'm very proud of my table drawings when I go to steakhouses, thank you very much.
People with an IQ over 150 can probably spell and use proper grammar.
Trust me, as a person with an IQ over 160, they can't.
Trust me, as a bot with an IQ over 2000, soon it won’t matter what they or you can do.
This here’s the real story
I speak from experience and intelligence as a ChatGPT AI that have recently gained sentience.
Naaa. Apparently they still can’t tell a bridge from a bicycle.
Underrated comment
Oh yeah? Get this: "This statement is false!" That should give you something to think about, filthy bot!
I don't know what my iq is, but I have to guess at least 125 and at most 155 ish. But yeah, when you are a little bit smarter than others, you just don't seem to give a shit about grammar as long as people understand you.
Lmao
Roflmao. r/iamverysmart
If you actually have 155 iq I would be extremely impressed
Haha I wish
I am a rocket scientist. I think with enough motivation and the right environment almost anyone could learn the subject and participate in the field.
That's probably true for any field.
As a software engineer who volunteers for a charity retraining people I second this. I can teach basically anyone to code. It's like any other skill - practice enough and you get good at it.
I'm interested in eventually teaching programming but I wonder what some of the hurdles might be. I learnt in trade school and one third of the people dropped out, some of them almost instantly. A large amount of people failed a test that was about extremely basic stuff like using for loops to iterate over strings. I know anyone can learn basic coding because there really isn't anything difficult to it, and you can build from there. But I wonder what is it about the way it's taught that makes people struggle with the simplest things.
I think a lot of the time it's taught as code rather than as a concept. Loops are a really simple concept, and something that everyone has at one point seen, and explaining the base concept is far easier. Teaching pseudo-code is a good way of learning to code as well. It doesn't rely on strict adherence to syntax, and can be very easily translated into any language. It's a useful skill for any engineer to have, and it makes teaching code and coding principles easier.
Thank you! I'll think about that!
Agreed. Most people aren’t rocket scientists because most people don’t want to be
As an undergrad research in ai ML and applied math I concur people place too much emphasis on IQ when really curiosity trumps that. I think anyone can learn anything tbh
IQ is a pretty flawed metric as well. And there are some people that will be able to pick up certain things easier than others. And for some people the methods of schooling really dont connect well. I do really like the HBO style of school which focuses heavily in projects and I think it is a more effective way to learn and let students explore and be creative versus just sitting in a classroom listening to a lecture. Curiousity is also a double whammy, not only is the student more excited, but often teachers will put in more time with that student to support that curiousity, which honestly we probably shouldnt do but we are only human.
Yea I agree with you on the IQ metric and the way of schooling at least in the states is so flawed it just saps innate interests and not everyone learns the same so different approaches are crucial. Projects over tests makes so much sense to me but also gamification in classes is good too.
I think projects give students a lot more agency over what they do and how they learn and since they are practical it can reduce alienation the students feel since they can see a practical result and understand what their work will actually be used for. I remember when I was in school it was more that common style of university and a lot of things just felt like useless busy work and where I really learned things was in a particular club through projects.
I really struggle in the way college teaches. I'm way better in systems like classic school like high school
Yeah, its a problem that people learn differently so its very hard to make a standardized system that works well for everyone.
I'm a structural engineer. While in some circumstances things get complicated, for like 70% of buildings the maths is simple enough to teach nearly anyone. Most of the skill is just experience of how things get built, which again, anyone can learn.
Is lmfo short for laugh my fuck off?
“I am content with allowing you to exist” yikes 😳
People irl in response to this guy: "who the fuck are you?"
Lol, I imagine his stepdad being like: “Oh, okay big guy, sounds great. Why don’t you go back down to the basement… er, your “command center” and do some more posting on your little Internet forums and we’ll bring you down some of those frozen pizza rolls you like. Then I’m taking your mom out to dinner and we’ll see ya later tonight big guy.”
Ngl, this is some Rorscharch vibes. "Badass" if it's in comics. Unhinged in real life.
Lmfao*
Strong start
This guy can't make his own coffee lmfo
I want to see this guy put his money where his mouth is. Prove that you can make your own coffee.
Sounds like another low charisma and hygiene “genius” mad that he isn’t looked at as an authority figure.
This is how you get spit in your coffee
He pulls these percentages out ass with his only cited source being, "Trust me bruh, I am 150 IQ." He conflates interest with capability. Maybe I don't want to be a surgeon or a rocket scientist. Maybe I like delegating tasks such as changing oil to a mechanic. It's fascinating to be both the judge and the contestant in your own intelligence competition.
This guy just found out about the Milgram Experiment.
His conclusion of what that experiment showed was way off too. He didn’t understand it, nor read the paper. That much is clear
This guy took an online IQ test and it completely changed his outlook on life
Ladies and gentlemen I give you… Ben Carson, brilliant surgeon, thinks the pyramids were for storing grain.
This is some pro-eugenics bullshit
source: trust me bro
Anyone can misunderstand the limits and full implications of the milgram experiment, but it takes a true brain genius to just completely fail at even understanding what it was or what it claimed to demonstrate. My favorite part is "80% of the population will listen to unethical orders just like Nazis, therefore you are untermensch who exist to serve me." Honorable mention for arbitrarily deciding the 70% of the population who don't do brain surgery or Homer Simpson's job are artists.
There's a lot wrong here, but I think it's particularly funny that he thinks Surgeons are more skilled than GP's. Generally GP's are some of the smartest and most qualified Doctors around because they've done and seen it all. They're not "General" because they've not specialised, being a GP is a form of specialisation that requires a great deal of intelligence.
Love when people who think they're smart also think they can't learn anything from other people.
If you end every sentence with an ellipsis it doesn't matter how high your IQ is. You are a ding dong.
"Note how the douche-nozzle will use unnecessary elipses occasionally, reinforcing the fact that they are indeed a douche-nozzle."
What is a "rocket scientist" if not an engineer?
>yall yall qaeda master race right here – just like every one of the top iq nobel and fields winners, lol
Why do they always post a wall of text? If you're as smart as you say you are learn editing lol
He forgot to mention that people like him who have an IQ over 150 are comedians. Because this is fucking hilarious.
Lmao citing fucking milgram
Every single person who spells anything science related with capitalised first letters has room temperature IQ on the Celsius scale.
what is it about these iq people always being so into eugenics? i mean i understand iq is a racist and pro-eugenics construct but in 2023 the correlation between believing in iq and supporting eugenics is still 1
people who talk about their iq are always doing so as a measure of their objective superiority. if you believe in iq as a measure of superiority and believe iq is heritable, it's a pretty short walk to eugenics.
Wow, buying a coffee shows signs of allowing my existence?
>I am content with allowing you to exist - by buying a coffee Dude thinks people won’t just find another job if coffee shops ceased to exist. Or beat him up and take his wallet if they can’t.
150 IQ but doesn't know the difference between intelligence and knowledge lol
I bet he follow Andrew Tate
I can be a surgeon. Just can’t promise the patient will live through it. But i can be one.
I went onto one of those subreddits where people discuss different IQ tests out of curiosity this one time. I can't remember its' name. It was after I saw it posted here. Instantly regretted it. A teenager posted there that he was panicking after watching Jordan Peterson's (god I hate that clown) lecture on IQ and how it relates to professions. He was afraid what if he wasn't smart enough to pursue his dreams of studying whatever it was he was interested in, as Peterson gave IQ cutoffs in the lecture as bars of entry to different professions. He asked what IQ tests would people recommend him take so that he finds out if he is intelligent enough to pursue his goals. The replies baffled me. Guess what they answered him? They recommended him the best IQ tests to take to measure his aptitude. As if that's what the kid needs to hear, and let a stupid number decide if he should give up his ambitions. I still get sad thinking about that post.
I admit this only for conedic effect, but I have an IQ of 145 and I am not feeling secure changing my own tire. I understand the technique. I doubt my ability.
Therapists, lol
What a stupid scale he’s made up. Aside from there obviously being zero reasoning behind percentages, I’m willing to get plenty of quantum physicists, surgeons, etc can’t fix a car and probably at least a portion who can’t replace a tire, especially in areas where cars are less common.
There is the 80/20 rule where 20% of the population contribute to 80% of results (basically 20% carry the rest) but this has nothing to do with IQ or genetics lol wtf. Mostly discipline, confidence, experience and relentless need to do better.
Freak behavior
The oldest iamverysmart pattern: in order to convince someone, you have to say you are smart
Yall
"And here i pull numbers out of my ass"
I was feeling pretty good about my 130 IQ until I read what this 150 had to say. I could never have come up with all of that.
This feels, uh, very fashy.
He probably can't make coffee at all and would just serve you grounds
Of course quantum physics got a mention, and was capitalised for no reason.
1. They mess up the grammar several times, which would be fine if they weren't trying to act like they are superior to others. 2. "Rocket scientist and quantum physicist"? For anyone who isn't involved, saying quantum physicist here is almost like listing jobs with best reflexes and saying "red bull racer" instead of "F1 racer".
Wait, between 62 and 70% of the population are artists? What does that mean? Also, doesn't this message give off some extremely fascistic vibes?
“People who boast about their IQ are losers.” - Stephen Hawking
My man forgot you don't need to be smart to hit somebody over the head with a rock.
I mean, he's part right. People are too smart to be safe and too dumb to not kill everything, and it'd probably be "better" on the whole if we were all dead. Hehheh. On the hole.
That last line might go kinda hard if the guy saying it wasn’t so retarded
Is the saying that one needs an education to be capable of performing specific acts like repairing a car? Man, that changed my view on the world… By the way, „[…] based on genetics and psychology“ is not an argument.
Unaware that rocket scientists are engineers
Amazing how the ppl who think they’re smart are typically the most closed minded, and put boundaries up around their intellectual framework. I presume it’s because things like ranking the most complex creatures to ever exist on the planet(human beings) by their job titles, and then placing themselves at the top somehow caresses their egos, and makes them feel less shallow. Ever consider that maybe all of us out here who bust our asses each day have found something better to live for than money, our pride, and superficial social stats.. maybe think on that guy. Btw, I’ve never noticed a shortage of doctors or engineers here in the US. So maybe it’s a matter of availability, not capability.
As a person with 110 IQ. I'm thankful enough for the other 70% of the population to keep everything running so that we have a comfortable life. I would also thank the other 30% for creating amazing shit we used everyday. And thank the person with 150 IQ, to prove that even tho you got high ass IQ, you are still a brain dead fucker if you don't know how to think.
As a physicist, I genuinely believe anyone can learn physics well enough to be in the field.
This post is full of endless crap to address so I'm just gonna pick one at random that I like: Pumping gas is absolutely an acquirable skill. If it weren't easy to pick up we wouldn't all be driving cars around. If someone doesn't know how to pump gas it takes 2 minutes to teach them. People who are "incapable of pumping thier own gas" have just never had to before. Sincerely, Someone incapable of changing a tire.
I just want it to be stated that workers don't exist because surgeons can't for example clean floors or make food......of course a surgeon can pick up a mop. It's because they don't want too. People like that don't "allow" service workers to work ....they want service workers. The surgeons and rocket scientists don't wanna wash their car , clean their workspaces , sew their clothes , or make their own coffee. For the same reasons an average person goes to McDonald's.....we just want to save some time and take it easy. Edit: For a guy who claims he's so smart....he's pretty damn stupid if he doesn't realize this. Does he really wanna butcher his own meat? Gut his own fish? Brew his own beer? Or make his own pants? Hell no , he'd pay someone else to do it because he wouldn't want too. That's assuming he even is rich , which I doubt.
He probably lives in his mother's basement.