Generally speaking this would reflect high intellect. It is true IQ can dramatically fluctuate from childhood to adulthood, but it would be extremely rare to see a kid with an IQ of 150 to grow up and have an IQ of 90.
What’s the deal with IQ anyway? Sharon Stone’s is reportedly 156 and the greatest contribution she’s made to society was to show her naked crotch for a split second in Basic Instinct.
It is the greatest predictor of life outcome we have. So that kinda makes it a big deal. But in a world of social equity no one wants to have that conversation.
By life outcome my measures are educational attainment and financial income. Most people that matter agree with that. Although I am certainly open to the possibility that those are bullshit and don’t matter.
1 Like
I thought socioeconomic status was the greatest predictor of life outcome…
#unfortunatetruths
What practical use would you have for this?
Imagine you’re in a fierce debate and you disagree with your opponents conveyed ideology. They start getting cocky so you pull out the best ad hominem attack possible
“Hey, there’s an X% chance I’m smarter than you… so shut up”
THAT’S what IQ is for (an excuse to be a dick)
For reference, this entire post isn’t serious
Think again.
Notice how I specified life out come.
Educational attainment.
Financial income.
IQ predicts your success in those two domains the best.
There are several studies done that supports this. I usually defer to authority on these subjects. My authority being Jordan Peterson. Who by no means is infallible.
This one looks at IQ and SES and tracks it to income.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289611000237?via%3Dihub
1 Like
But, again, what practical use would knowing one’s IQ serve? I can’t think of any purpose for it unless in certain exceptional cases.
I mean, you don’t want border line retards fucking around with grenades and live rounds in the military. But these would be in the minority. But most people are average. So what’s the big deal?
It can be a decent measure of academic capacity during adolescence (i.e what class should we assign X student too).
Why would you want to do that unless you have some real genius? Just let them get good grades and assign them to the relevant classes/let them take on the tougher subjects based on these grades and let them grow up like normal kids.
Some classes are far harder than others. You don’t want to be taking up quantum theory with an IQ of 80. But more or less I agree with you. Let the student figure it out on his/her own accord as opposed to being granted a number and getting told “this is where you stand”
In secondary school we had different streams. I qualified for the science stream and was given the option to take 9-10 subjects instead of 7-8 based on grades but my peers were the same age and I grew up normally socialized. Kids with lesser grades could only go to the arts or commerce stream so they couldn’t study stuff like biology but they were also mingling with peers of the same age.
It’s not a big deal. I don’t think any high IQ kid is being shortchanged of his potential. You let the kid skip 2-3 grades and he may have problems fitting in with older kids and develop all sorts of emotional problems. Would it be worth it?
1 Like
This is also highly dependant on the parents’ decisions. The kid may not actually want it. You get Chinese parents and if they let you skip from sec 1 to pre U they’ll say “yes” without hesitation and won’t allow you to refuse even though you’ve not even hit puberty yet. That’s gonna fuck up even an extremely intelligent kid.
1 Like
Ah, IQ, another concept only weird people still think matters. Don’t you know that the only things that matter in the long run are hard work, a stable household, and adequate nutrition. Surely it can’t be a god given characteristic that makes one superior to the next guy or gal (for some reason it’s fine to recognize if someone is beautiful or naturally athletic or strong though).
And then like, if you consider some naturally better than others (in intellect, say), you sound like you-know-who and the you-know-who’s. And you know where that leads.
Then if you want to be fruitful and multiply and raise a talented and/or well behaved and disciplined family… pfft… now you’re really sounding like the you-know-who’s.
3 Likes
I do believe every individual has certain strengths and weaknesses. I don’t think it’s a bad thing per se to recognise an individuals strongsuits and thus cater towards said strengths. Some are academically proficient, some are good with their hands, some are naturally athletic, some are attractive etc.
It isn’t about superiority, rather someone may harbour neurobiologically engrained traits that cater towards a certain niche. What’s inherently wrong with enabling one to excel in a given niche if they’re naturally talented be it academically, athletically, or within a superficial context? Granted there’s a medium, excess pressure almost never amounts to a good outcome.
It doesn’t mean one shouldn’t work on perceived weaknesses. I’m certainly not built for weightlifting, but I’m not going to stop exercising/lifting weights. That being said I’m not going to put all my stock in bodybuilding as it’s very obviously not my metier #chronicpain.
I was obviously being sarcastic in my post and people can figure out how I was.
Innate ability (IQ) is Damn important in some endeavors.
Cultures don’t fall out of the sky. People create them and they’re a reflection of those people. Language for example is part of a culture. The Chinese people weren’t given Chinese language; they created it. Just like people create all of their culture.
Of course after culture is initially created it can be pushed upon foreign people.
I’m still sleep deprived so I couldn’t figure it out. I’ll just delete my reply.
There definitely seems to be an erosion of standards. Patriarchy has historically been essential for keeping a well ordered society and a strong family. Not to say that woman don’t have a crucial role to play in a family, and greater society, but with feminism the focus has gone well beyond equality, and focuses myopically on details at the expense of the broader society. All the major religions have been patriarchal, with defined gender roles.
I think has always been the stereotype of the repressed, rebellious catholic schoolgirl. Many times it true. Also at least in the Gen X times(maybe not subsequent generations) there were also the virtuous types that weren’t going to give up their virginity without a substantial show of commitment.
Yes this stuffs been going on for years, shows and advertising, gotten really bad in recent years. A little bit can be amusing, if other members of society can get a similar amount of attention. This doesn’t seem to happen anymore. If it does it gets shut down as misogyny. All this chipping away at masculinity, attempting to push the obsolescence of men, doesn’t make a healthy society.
1 Like