You go from saying inequality is made up then give examples of inequality.
I also think you didn’t read the article or misunderstood it.
I disagree with the whole notion that this is an inequality. Not in the sense that you are discriminated against for not having a high IQ.
Basically, if Gordon Murray named his book ‘Quantifying Cognitive Inequality’ instead of ‘The Bell Curve’ he would have been a hero and a darling of leftist identity politics. Except now we’re inventing ‘inequalities’ out of the thin air.
Nobody made one person smart and another dumb. There is no conspiracy to keep the ‘lower’ people down.
There is a huge discrepancy on how you determine IQ since much of the quantifying measurements are ‘west-centric’ and cannot adequately determine the IQ of someone who has not received formal, western, education. In as much as the studies can be done fairly, I believe they have been, but the tool to measure is inherently flawed. And the whole idea on basing human intelligence on IQ scores is being challenged in it’s own right since it only measure one thing, processing complexity and speed. It looks like 2 things, but they are measured as one.
So the whole load of crap that their is even a cognitive inequality that requires addressing based on IQ scores is a flawed premise in the first place, as if it’s unfair that some people are smarter than others. Second, it’s been done. The guy who did it had his life ruined because he was called a racist. If he used the word ‘Inequality’ he’d be a leftist hero. Literally a word away between ‘racist’ and ‘hero’.
Want proof its bullshit?
Let’s say your hiking in the bush in Africa and there are lions in that bush. Who would you rather have as your guide, the genius Stephen Hawking or the (supposed) lower IQ bushman whose lived in the bush all his life and dodged many lions?
Don’t tell me you’d pick the ‘dumber’ person??
2 thumbs up as I think IQ as a benchmark is flawed at best.
However, do you feel extra credence is added to using IQ despite it’s ‘western teachings’ requirements while knowing the world is constantly and consistently being shaped by those very same teachings? So effectively, you have a ‘how smart is this person in the context of the world westerners have created’ metric?
2 Likes
Of course you are. If I wanted to play in the NBA my height would be one reason, of many, for discrimination. If you want to get into Harvard but are denied because of reasons that relate to your intelligence, you have been discriminated against for reasons of intelligence.
Again, if people all don’t have the same IQ, then all IQs are not equal. Where is the invention there?
Regardless, however you want to measure it, intelligence is not distributed equally.
“Some people are smarter than others.” You say that inequality is an invention then state that we are not all equally intelligent.
But you just said some are smarter than others.
You didn’t read the article. And don’t say you did (even if you did) because that will make you look worse.
A dog would be better, but does that make the dog smarter than Hawking or the Bushman? Also, a genius like Hawking (without his illness) could learn to do what the Bushman does but could the Bushman ever do what Hawking can do?
Fine, then I have height and talent inequality and it’s not fair that some people get to have the talent and the height to play basketball. Either they need their legs cut off or they should share.
That’s one way to not answer the question.
Don’t infantry units need a few low IQ people? I thought if a unit was pinned down by a machine gun, one trooper would have to leave defilade to try and work around the field of fire, no, really, get killed, so another one could survive getting around the other way and land a grenade in the machine gun nest.
I seem to remember Captain Miller in ‘Saving Private Ryan’ telling Sargeant Horvath that he has killed 94 men. Is this the same thing?
I did, but it’s not a question of ‘equality’, i.e. worth…
Most people with properly low IQs are pretty harmless (often they are heavily looked after or institutionalised), it’s the people with lowish to average intelligence that generally do the greatest damage IME. It’s that dangerous mix (often found within the prison population) of: Enough brain to cause havoc & not quite enough grey matter to give a fuck or make morally meaningful changes.
1 Like
You and I have different definitions of equality. I am and have been talking about ‘equality’ or ‘inequality’ as a value judgement. It doesn’t even makes sense to talk about it in the sense that ‘one is different from the other’. That’s a ‘no shit Sherlock’ scenario. Smart or dumb isn’t a value judgement and making one where it doesn’t need to exist is pointless.
1 Like
It’s the opposite. There is far more need for low to medium skilled labor. ‘No college necessary jobs’ cannot be filled fast enough. And a lot of jobs that used to require college no longer do.
In the US, are you saying grade school has improved to the point that some jobs no longer need college?
Well. I’m a data nerd for the world’s largest staffing company.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on which type of job is considerably harder to fill at the moment. If I could, I would share with you the results showing you are stating the polar opposite of what’s currently happening.
Why do you equate inequality with the concept of fairness? No one is doing that but you.
Obviously it is a value judgement. One IQ is higher (has a higher value) than another. Height is valued more in basketball.
You really do have your own dictionary.
The question was flawed.
and something more current:
The lion ate your dog.
I’m not disputing that college degrees are becoming less and less required. I’m actually majorly in favor of that
I’m disputing that it’s getting more difficult to fill low skill jobs compared to high skill jobs. As the unemployment rate drops, it always increase the difficulty to fill high skill jobs more than low skill.
Also, up through today, with a couple European exceptions, every country we do business in (every 1st world and most 2nd world) is seeing a trend down in time to fill low skill jobs, and a trend up in time to fill high skill jobs.