Topic: Charlie Kirk is all that is man
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 months ago #128,085
The truly superior race, a real alpha maleAnonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #1,381,250
Are you mad that you're not happily married with a beautiful family? Seems like the jealousy is getting to you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,251
@previous (B)
Why would you assume anything about my family life? I'm an anonymous person on a chan.
Why would you assume anything about my family life? I'm an anonymous person on a chan.
boof joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 22 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,255
christ that's an ugly fucker
Anonymous B replied with this 6 months ago, 25 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,257
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,260
Debating random people is problematic because only a stupid person would want to debate a professional political grifter.
Anonymous D double-posted this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,261
Debate seems to attract the liberal arts types anyway. Why don’t political people ever head over to the engineering department and debate some grad students? I’d be surprised if they find anything other than Indians with glasses who just stare at them blankly.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,295
@1,381,260 (D)
@previous (D)
Liberal arts students are supposed to be getting an education on rhetoric, and Kirk is showing that none of them have the very basic skills that you should have in that field. Any adult that gets into college should come in already knowing that it's important to control their emotions and use their words to defend a point.
Every time he goes to a campus, even the elite schools, he proves that the elites aren't what they are perceived to be. They shout at him in mobs, they respond to his arguments by making emotional appeals instead of deferring to data, and they abandon the conversation or call him names when they can't think of a response.
His signature move is asking people to define a basic word, and they continually fail to do that. Why are the best and the brightest not aware of how a definition works? You should have learned that in your K-12 education, and be at the point that you can use words you understand to form and defend a thesis. No matter how many time he does it, the next batch of students, who will admit they have seen his debates before, repeat the same mistake of using circular definitions. They aren't just uneducated, they are unable to learn from past mistakes, and he demonstrates that.
@previous (D)
Liberal arts students are supposed to be getting an education on rhetoric, and Kirk is showing that none of them have the very basic skills that you should have in that field. Any adult that gets into college should come in already knowing that it's important to control their emotions and use their words to defend a point.
Every time he goes to a campus, even the elite schools, he proves that the elites aren't what they are perceived to be. They shout at him in mobs, they respond to his arguments by making emotional appeals instead of deferring to data, and they abandon the conversation or call him names when they can't think of a response.
His signature move is asking people to define a basic word, and they continually fail to do that. Why are the best and the brightest not aware of how a definition works? You should have learned that in your K-12 education, and be at the point that you can use words you understand to form and defend a thesis. No matter how many time he does it, the next batch of students, who will admit they have seen his debates before, repeat the same mistake of using circular definitions. They aren't just uneducated, they are unable to learn from past mistakes, and he demonstrates that.
T-34 joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,296
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 56 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,297
Also come on "the elites" you’re talking about random undergraduate 18 to 20 something year olds.
T-34 triple-posted this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,298
(Edited 29 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,299
@1,381,296 (T-34)
A debate does have a point, because it shows who is capable of articulating a defense of their ideas, and who can't. That's a reliable way to differentiate between valid ideas, and incoherent nonsense.
The people who say debate it pointless, or who argue that certain ideas shouldn't be "platformed" always end up being the people who cannot calmly articulate a defense of their ideas. It's like refusing to play chess because you can never win. It isn't enlightened, it's a bad excuse for poor performance.
@1,381,297 (T-34)
Anyone can walk up to him to talk, juniors/seniors aren't excluded, neither are grad students or staff.
And it's hardly random, he will set up a booth at some of the most exclusive colleges and get the same results.
What does it actually mean that someone got into a top university, if almost no one of any class standing at those universities can control their emotions and defend their beliefs?
A debate does have a point, because it shows who is capable of articulating a defense of their ideas, and who can't. That's a reliable way to differentiate between valid ideas, and incoherent nonsense.
The people who say debate it pointless, or who argue that certain ideas shouldn't be "platformed" always end up being the people who cannot calmly articulate a defense of their ideas. It's like refusing to play chess because you can never win. It isn't enlightened, it's a bad excuse for poor performance.
@1,381,297 (T-34)
Anyone can walk up to him to talk, juniors/seniors aren't excluded, neither are grad students or staff.
And it's hardly random, he will set up a booth at some of the most exclusive colleges and get the same results.
What does it actually mean that someone got into a top university, if almost no one of any class standing at those universities can control their emotions and defend their beliefs?
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,300
(Edited 23 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 50 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,301
@1,381,298 (T-34)
In real life I wouldn't either, because it creates drama and it's clear most people don't have the integrity to take accountability when they can't respond.
What CK is doing still matters though. There are people who don't have the skills to debate, or who don't want to risk the aggression it brings, and they can see what happens when both sides get a chance to talk. If they were uncertain about an issue before, it clears it up quick: the trans movement can't defend their ideas, and resort to threats when people dissent. Critics of that movement can calmly explain why they have taken an opposing stance without freaking out or running away.
There's a lot of people that understand the basic dynamic, and aren't ideologically attached to a side yet, and he's influencing them. He's demonstrating which side is correct.
In real life I wouldn't either, because it creates drama and it's clear most people don't have the integrity to take accountability when they can't respond.
What CK is doing still matters though. There are people who don't have the skills to debate, or who don't want to risk the aggression it brings, and they can see what happens when both sides get a chance to talk. If they were uncertain about an issue before, it clears it up quick: the trans movement can't defend their ideas, and resort to threats when people dissent. Critics of that movement can calmly explain why they have taken an opposing stance without freaking out or running away.
There's a lot of people that understand the basic dynamic, and aren't ideologically attached to a side yet, and he's influencing them. He's demonstrating which side is correct.
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 months ago, 22 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,302
@1,381,300 (T-34)
> It is possible for an argument to be both valid and false if it is based upon premises which are untrue.
No, you are confusing soundness for validity.
> It is possible for an argument to be both valid and false if it is based upon premises which are untrue.
No, you are confusing soundness for validity.
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 10 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,303
(Edited 22 minutes later.)
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,304
(Edited 18 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,305
@1,381,303 (T-34)
> I actually don’t believe that ideology is very important.
Ideology affects everything in society. If it wasn't important, why do we have institutions across the country where people spend so much time and money to refine their ideologies?
> I think that people who don’t defend their beliefs tend to be smarter than people who do.
Imagine if someone said "I think people that don't play chess are better at the game than people who do".
It's obviously a cope. People who are smart can calmly articulate a defense.
> For example, trying to make an argument for why your wrong idea is correct in engineering won’t really get you anywhere, because engineering depends on things that actually exist. Ideas don’t exist.
This is akin to saying nothing in engineering exists because it's just marks on a paper, or 1s and 0s simulating on a computer. Obviously those things matter because they are the planning for real physical objects.
Ideologies matter for the same reason. There are real people, real behaviors, real resources that exist and are regulated based on those ideologies and that will matter a lot when one ideology is implemented over another.
Some societies fail because their underlying ideology was flawed. Some succeed because their ideologies are rigorously backed up. The people in those societies will care a great deal when they have to deal with the results.
> I actually don’t believe that ideology is very important.
Ideology affects everything in society. If it wasn't important, why do we have institutions across the country where people spend so much time and money to refine their ideologies?
> I think that people who don’t defend their beliefs tend to be smarter than people who do.
Imagine if someone said "I think people that don't play chess are better at the game than people who do".
It's obviously a cope. People who are smart can calmly articulate a defense.
> For example, trying to make an argument for why your wrong idea is correct in engineering won’t really get you anywhere, because engineering depends on things that actually exist. Ideas don’t exist.
This is akin to saying nothing in engineering exists because it's just marks on a paper, or 1s and 0s simulating on a computer. Obviously those things matter because they are the planning for real physical objects.
Ideologies matter for the same reason. There are real people, real behaviors, real resources that exist and are regulated based on those ideologies and that will matter a lot when one ideology is implemented over another.
Some societies fail because their underlying ideology was flawed. Some succeed because their ideologies are rigorously backed up. The people in those societies will care a great deal when they have to deal with the results.
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 months ago, 22 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,306
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,307
(Edited 20 minutes later.)
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 28 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,308
(Edited 22 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,309
@1,381,304 (T-34)
For a lot of political debates both sides can agree on certain goals they want to attain. They can start by agreeing they want to have more wealth and more safety, for example.
Once they've established that, if they have two different ideas about how to get there, debate can be used to determine who's made mistakes in their ideology and use that method to distinguish right from wrong.
It's not that value judgments aren't arbitrary, they are, but that doesn't change the fact that people with similar goals can use debate to figure out the best way to shared goals based on those values.
For a lot of political debates both sides can agree on certain goals they want to attain. They can start by agreeing they want to have more wealth and more safety, for example.
Once they've established that, if they have two different ideas about how to get there, debate can be used to determine who's made mistakes in their ideology and use that method to distinguish right from wrong.
It's not that value judgments aren't arbitrary, they are, but that doesn't change the fact that people with similar goals can use debate to figure out the best way to shared goals based on those values.
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 8 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,310
(Edited 21 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,311
@1,381,307 (T-34)
> I don’t believe that societies fail or succeed due to ideology. I think it has more to do with natural resources, technological progress, and birth rates.
There are countries with many natural resources that are in deep poverty, there are countries that have been able to make big leaps in technological progress despite being small and devoid of abundant resources, and there's a reason some societies have higher/lower birthrates despite being similar to another society that is in the same situation.
Ideology impacts everything.
> I don’t believe that societies fail or succeed due to ideology. I think it has more to do with natural resources, technological progress, and birth rates.
There are countries with many natural resources that are in deep poverty, there are countries that have been able to make big leaps in technological progress despite being small and devoid of abundant resources, and there's a reason some societies have higher/lower birthrates despite being similar to another society that is in the same situation.
Ideology impacts everything.
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 2 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,312
(Edited 20 minutes later.)
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,313
(Edited 19 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,314
@1,381,310 (T-34)
If one side creates a system through rigorously designing a system that aids them in that goal, and another chooses to ignore all of that and just wing it, do you really think they'd have the same results?
That's like if one athlete studied nutrition and physical fitness to create a training regimen to maximize their results, and another decided to just do nothing and show up the day of the competition.
Sure, there are times where natural advantage will beat everything else, but there's a reason the top athletes all stick to a strict training routine. It matters enough that anyone who doesn't, doesn't win.
If one side creates a system through rigorously designing a system that aids them in that goal, and another chooses to ignore all of that and just wing it, do you really think they'd have the same results?
That's like if one athlete studied nutrition and physical fitness to create a training regimen to maximize their results, and another decided to just do nothing and show up the day of the competition.
Sure, there are times where natural advantage will beat everything else, but there's a reason the top athletes all stick to a strict training routine. It matters enough that anyone who doesn't, doesn't win.
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 6 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,315
(Edited 21 minutes later.)
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 51 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,316
(Edited 21 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,317
@1,381,312 (T-34)
There's many societies that have debates built into the decision making process, where voters or legislators are influenced by that, and the ultimate law is different because of it.
@1,381,313 (T-34)
If that's the case, wouldn't there be value in a resource-abundant country recognizing that and adjusting their economic plans to incorporate manufacturing or services, or military strength, even if they could (in the present) get by on just raw material extraction?
If so, then those ideas, understood by the right people, could put that country on a path to being wealthier in the future.
That's another case of ideas impacting the real material reality of the people living in that society.
There's many societies that have debates built into the decision making process, where voters or legislators are influenced by that, and the ultimate law is different because of it.
@1,381,313 (T-34)
If that's the case, wouldn't there be value in a resource-abundant country recognizing that and adjusting their economic plans to incorporate manufacturing or services, or military strength, even if they could (in the present) get by on just raw material extraction?
If so, then those ideas, understood by the right people, could put that country on a path to being wealthier in the future.
That's another case of ideas impacting the real material reality of the people living in that society.
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,319
(Edited 15 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,320
@1,381,315 (T-34)
There's also people who defend democracy that implements discussion and debate before the legislative session votes. Also why some democracies have a tradition of political candidates going in public to debate their ideas.
@1,381,316 (T-34)
> Nobody designed the British system of government
That's not true, many people were involved in creating the traditions and laws of Britain. Many kings were involved, and I'm sure you'd agree that Stephen Langton had a big role in the trajectory Britain took?
> Their system of government evolved over centuries, but they got lucky.
Is it luck when they have a long tradition of debate, and many countries (prior to the British empire) did not have a tradition like that?
There's also people who defend democracy that implements discussion and debate before the legislative session votes. Also why some democracies have a tradition of political candidates going in public to debate their ideas.
@1,381,316 (T-34)
> Nobody designed the British system of government
That's not true, many people were involved in creating the traditions and laws of Britain. Many kings were involved, and I'm sure you'd agree that Stephen Langton had a big role in the trajectory Britain took?
> Their system of government evolved over centuries, but they got lucky.
Is it luck when they have a long tradition of debate, and many countries (prior to the British empire) did not have a tradition like that?
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,321
@1,381,319 (T-34)
And what would they do if they had an ideology that emphasized domestic production, instead of trading raw goods for finished products?
There's no reason those countries couldn't. The only reason they don't, is ideology.
And what would they do if they had an ideology that emphasized domestic production, instead of trading raw goods for finished products?
There's no reason those countries couldn't. The only reason they don't, is ideology.
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 9 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,322
(Edited 12 minutes later.)
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,323
(Edited 16 minutes later.)
T-34 triple-posted this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,324
(Edited 14 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,325
@1,381,322 (T-34)
Maoism was officially based on dialectics, for what that's worth.
And debate is important, but I'm not saying it's 100% of the equation. I'm sure there are many things you would agree matter, but that China is deficient in.
@1,381,323 (T-34)
> No, it’s because every country can’t produce everything.
That wasn't the argument.
Any of the countries currently trading raw materials for finished goods could pick a few industries to specialize in so that they have domestic manufacturing, or invest in training people in particular services. It's not an all-or-nothing question, you can build up those sectors without trying to implement Juche.
> Modern technology is too complex for any one country to create their own supply chains entirely within their borders without trading with other countries.
Yet there are many countries that aren't operating on this "raw goods for finished products" economic model, but they do produce a few items in that supply chain.
Start making one component in a smartphone, or a car, and become part of that supply chain. Now you aren't entirely reliant on the raw materials, and have diversified the economy so it can withstand changes in raw commodity prices that you happen to export.
Maoism was officially based on dialectics, for what that's worth.
And debate is important, but I'm not saying it's 100% of the equation. I'm sure there are many things you would agree matter, but that China is deficient in.
@1,381,323 (T-34)
> No, it’s because every country can’t produce everything.
That wasn't the argument.
Any of the countries currently trading raw materials for finished goods could pick a few industries to specialize in so that they have domestic manufacturing, or invest in training people in particular services. It's not an all-or-nothing question, you can build up those sectors without trying to implement Juche.
> Modern technology is too complex for any one country to create their own supply chains entirely within their borders without trading with other countries.
Yet there are many countries that aren't operating on this "raw goods for finished products" economic model, but they do produce a few items in that supply chain.
Start making one component in a smartphone, or a car, and become part of that supply chain. Now you aren't entirely reliant on the raw materials, and have diversified the economy so it can withstand changes in raw commodity prices that you happen to export.
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,326
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,329
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 14 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,330
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 months ago, 59 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,331
Why clear everything?
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,332
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,334
I do think your point of view is interesting though.
boof replied with this 6 months ago, 5 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,356
@1,381,295 (E)
> Liberal arts students are supposed to be getting an education on rhetoric, and Kirk is showing that none of them have the very basic skills that you should have in that field. Any adult that gets into college should come in already knowing that it's important to control their emotions and use their words to defend a point.
>
> Every time he goes to a campus, even the elite schools, he proves that the elites aren't what they are perceived to be. They shout at him in mobs, they respond to his arguments by making emotional appeals instead of deferring to data, and they abandon the conversation or call him names when they can't think of a response.
>
> His signature move is asking people to define a basic word, and they continually fail to do that. Why are the best and the brightest not aware of how a definition works? You should have learned that in your K-12 education, and be at the point that you can use words you understand to form and defend a thesis. No matter how many time he does it, the next batch of students, who will admit they have seen his debates before, repeat the same mistake of using circular definitions. They aren't just uneducated, they are unable to learn from past mistakes, and he demonstrates that.
no it isn't
> Liberal arts students are supposed to be getting an education on rhetoric, and Kirk is showing that none of them have the very basic skills that you should have in that field. Any adult that gets into college should come in already knowing that it's important to control their emotions and use their words to defend a point.
>
> Every time he goes to a campus, even the elite schools, he proves that the elites aren't what they are perceived to be. They shout at him in mobs, they respond to his arguments by making emotional appeals instead of deferring to data, and they abandon the conversation or call him names when they can't think of a response.
>
> His signature move is asking people to define a basic word, and they continually fail to do that. Why are the best and the brightest not aware of how a definition works? You should have learned that in your K-12 education, and be at the point that you can use words you understand to form and defend a thesis. No matter how many time he does it, the next batch of students, who will admit they have seen his debates before, repeat the same mistake of using circular definitions. They aren't just uneducated, they are unable to learn from past mistakes, and he demonstrates that.
no it isn't
T-34 joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 11 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,358
@previous (boof)
Creating political propaganda by embarrassing college kids is probably a more accurate description of what he does tbh.
Creating political propaganda by embarrassing college kids is probably a more accurate description of what he does tbh.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 36 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,359
I don't know who that is, but if you were talking about James Kirk then THAT would be someone manly.
boof replied with this 6 months ago, 15 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,360
@1,381,358 (T-34)
well sure, that's his whole thing. he is paid to do that. a hired propagandist, one of an extraordinary amount around these days. they swim in wealth and this is their place in society -- making society less of a society
well sure, that's his whole thing. he is paid to do that. a hired propagandist, one of an extraordinary amount around these days. they swim in wealth and this is their place in society -- making society less of a society
T-34 joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 10 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,389
@previous (boof)
He also got popular for spreading the idea that students at elite American universities are idiots on TikTok, which is a Chinese social media app. I can’t imagine why the algorithm made him go viral.
He also got popular for spreading the idea that students at elite American universities are idiots on TikTok, which is a Chinese social media app. I can’t imagine why the algorithm made him go viral.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,393
I just can’t imagine why the Chinese government would want to degrade people’s trust in American universities. (Sarcasm)
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 2 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,406
@previous (T-34)
Sub-prime mortgages chopped up and reorganized into CDOs were magically deemed AAA by the ratings agencies. Important, respected institutions that everyone trusts often just make it all up to maintain the status quo.
Half of this is that they are evaluated by people who are a product of this system, alumni who will never acknowledge the problems with the schools for their own pride. The other half is that they are genuinely showing which of these resorts has the best amenities, educational equipment, and social or business ties.
A rich person looking for a package deal to take care of their adult children, and offer them some activities to promote their development will find a lot of value on that website. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of temperamental, immature people are attending and don't have any of the classical liberal education universities were known for in the past.
Liberals want a classist system that will allow them to maintain their power and respect no matter how many developmental delays they have. The opposition to IQ testing on the left, and the rejection of all the scientific data supporting it, is to defend this power structure and keep more competent working-class people out of important positions by law.
Sub-prime mortgages chopped up and reorganized into CDOs were magically deemed AAA by the ratings agencies. Important, respected institutions that everyone trusts often just make it all up to maintain the status quo.
Half of this is that they are evaluated by people who are a product of this system, alumni who will never acknowledge the problems with the schools for their own pride. The other half is that they are genuinely showing which of these resorts has the best amenities, educational equipment, and social or business ties.
A rich person looking for a package deal to take care of their adult children, and offer them some activities to promote their development will find a lot of value on that website. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of temperamental, immature people are attending and don't have any of the classical liberal education universities were known for in the past.
Liberals want a classist system that will allow them to maintain their power and respect no matter how many developmental delays they have. The opposition to IQ testing on the left, and the rejection of all the scientific data supporting it, is to defend this power structure and keep more competent working-class people out of important positions by law.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
T-34 joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 8 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,409
@previous (E)
I think the idea that you have about IQ testing is outdated. Most colleges don’t require the SAT anymore because they don’t see standardized testing as a useful metric. Instead it’s based on what courses you had access to (AP, IB, or dual enrollment). If you had standard HS courses, then you’re kind of screwed.
I think the idea that you have about IQ testing is outdated. Most colleges don’t require the SAT anymore because they don’t see standardized testing as a useful metric. Instead it’s based on what courses you had access to (AP, IB, or dual enrollment). If you had standard HS courses, then you’re kind of screwed.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,410
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
T-34 joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,411
I also think IQ is a bit problematic due to cultural bias. Different cultures value different sorts of intelligence based on what their challenges are in their daily lives. For example, a lot of people (mostly racists to be honest), will say that people from some countries like Japan have high IQs while people from other countries like Nigeria have low IQs. Except, the skills someone would need to be successful in Japan would not be useful in Nigeria and vise-versa. And ironically, despite Nigeria having a GDP per capita of 800 USD and Japan having a GDP per capita of 32,000 USD, there are actually more Nigerian international students in American universities than Japanese students and Nigerian students actually tend to do really well in American universities even when compared to students from countries like China. So it creates this problem where, if you have one type of intelligence and you test someone with another type of intelligence, you might think someone who’s actually much smarter than you is stupid.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 28 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,412
@1,381,409 (T-34)
Maybe for the top universities, but most are not that selective. That is also a way of filtering for students that had free time, and parental support for extracurricular, nothing inherent to the students.
Most colleges will give you a degree if you can pay the tuition on time.
@previous (T-34)
IQ correlates to performance across various metrics of intelligence, as well as chance for criminality, job performance as evaluated by employers, the chance you have kids out of wedlock, and many other life outcomes. Even after controlling for race and socioeconomic status.
IQ doesn't have "cultural bias", that's an unsubstantiated claim that gets repeated by people who pursued teaching degrees and deny the inherent differences in intelligence (outside undeniable disorders). I challenge you to actually show an example of a real IQ test, one that's accepted by academic psychologists, that has cultural bias.
If you're dismissing all the data behind that because it's "racist" than you're a ideologically captured, and not truly an empiricist.
Maybe for the top universities, but most are not that selective. That is also a way of filtering for students that had free time, and parental support for extracurricular, nothing inherent to the students.
Most colleges will give you a degree if you can pay the tuition on time.
@previous (T-34)
IQ correlates to performance across various metrics of intelligence, as well as chance for criminality, job performance as evaluated by employers, the chance you have kids out of wedlock, and many other life outcomes. Even after controlling for race and socioeconomic status.
IQ doesn't have "cultural bias", that's an unsubstantiated claim that gets repeated by people who pursued teaching degrees and deny the inherent differences in intelligence (outside undeniable disorders). I challenge you to actually show an example of a real IQ test, one that's accepted by academic psychologists, that has cultural bias.
If you're dismissing all the data behind that because it's "racist" than you're a ideologically captured, and not truly an empiricist.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
T-34 joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,418
@previous (E)
It’s ironic you say that since you were arguing earlier that ideology matters and I was arguing that ideology doesn’t matter.
"Race science" and Social Darwinism were used in the past to justify eugenics in the United States which included forcibly sterilizing Black and Native American women without their knowledge or consent as well as justifying the mass extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany. I think that it is important to acknowledge that while it might not be true that different races have different IQs, the belief that do is incredibly dangerous, so when talking about innate differences in people based on IQ, it is important to acknowledge the history of it.
It’s ironic you say that since you were arguing earlier that ideology matters and I was arguing that ideology doesn’t matter.
"Race science" and Social Darwinism were used in the past to justify eugenics in the United States which included forcibly sterilizing Black and Native American women without their knowledge or consent as well as justifying the mass extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany. I think that it is important to acknowledge that while it might not be true that different races have different IQs, the belief that do is incredibly dangerous, so when talking about innate differences in people based on IQ, it is important to acknowledge the history of it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 months ago, 51 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,419
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,420
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,421
@1,381,418 (T-34)
But to elaborate on that point: part of Nazism wasn’t just racism. It was the belief that since in nature, the members of a species that have the strongest traits survive to pass on their genes, in order to create a stronger society, that we should kill people who have inferior traits. So it wasn’t just about murdering people who weren’t white, part of the holocaust was also murdering white people who were deemed as inferior due to intellectual disabilities or just disabilities in general.
But to elaborate on that point: part of Nazism wasn’t just racism. It was the belief that since in nature, the members of a species that have the strongest traits survive to pass on their genes, in order to create a stronger society, that we should kill people who have inferior traits. So it wasn’t just about murdering people who weren’t white, part of the holocaust was also murdering white people who were deemed as inferior due to intellectual disabilities or just disabilities in general.
T-34 triple-posted this 6 months ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,425
(Edited 29 minutes later.)
T-34 quadruple-posted this 6 months ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,432
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,473
@1,381,418 (T-34)
Why is it that rejecting race science means throwing out IQ, but not genetics?
It's completely arbitrary. Both were used in race science, but it's acceptable to acknowledge that genetics are real, but IQ is completely dismissed as bunk by anyone those in authority.
If you are going to be consistent, you'd either toss out all of it, or you'd recognize that you shouldn't toss the baby out with the bathwater and use both in a way that was ethical and scientifically supported.
Why is it that rejecting race science means throwing out IQ, but not genetics?
It's completely arbitrary. Both were used in race science, but it's acceptable to acknowledge that genetics are real, but IQ is completely dismissed as bunk by anyone those in authority.
If you are going to be consistent, you'd either toss out all of it, or you'd recognize that you shouldn't toss the baby out with the bathwater and use both in a way that was ethical and scientifically supported.
T-34 joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,474
@previous (E)
IQ and genetics are two very different things. DNA is a molecule that physically exists. IQ is just a one dimensional metric based on how well someone scored on a test relative to other people who took the same test.
IQ and genetics are two very different things. DNA is a molecule that physically exists. IQ is just a one dimensional metric based on how well someone scored on a test relative to other people who took the same test.
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,475
(Edited 12 minutes later.)
T-34 triple-posted this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,476
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,477
@1,381,474 (T-34)
> DNA is a molecule that physically exists.
That seems straightforward, but when the Soviet Union was at it's height Stalin and Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics altogether.
> IQ is just a one dimensional metric based on how well someone scored on a test relative to other people who took the same test.
It's one dimensional because it's designed to measure an underlying factor for intelligence, not give multiple specific measurements. The goal was to identify when someone was performing better or worse across many varied measures of intelligence. Alternatives to IQ lack rigor, and are aimed at making everyone feel special regardless of their actual cognitive ability.
It does give a relative score, but why would that be a negative?
> DNA is a molecule that physically exists.
That seems straightforward, but when the Soviet Union was at it's height Stalin and Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics altogether.
> IQ is just a one dimensional metric based on how well someone scored on a test relative to other people who took the same test.
It's one dimensional because it's designed to measure an underlying factor for intelligence, not give multiple specific measurements. The goal was to identify when someone was performing better or worse across many varied measures of intelligence. Alternatives to IQ lack rigor, and are aimed at making everyone feel special regardless of their actual cognitive ability.
It does give a relative score, but why would that be a negative?
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,478
(Edited 15 minutes later.)
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,479
T-34 triple-posted this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,480
(Edited 11 minutes later.)
T-34 quadruple-posted this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,481
(Edited 12 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 17 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,482
@1,381,475 (T-34)
> IQ isn’t a thing that people have and then one day a scientist discovered IQ. IQ is a thing that was invented by people.
The general factor can be measured and used to predict life outcomes. How is that possible if it doesn't exist?
> The problem is, IQ attempts to reduce the most complex organ in the human body down to one number.
No, IQ only aims to measure G. There's nothing about it that rejects additional parts of human intelligence.
> Now, that number might be useful for something, but there are definitely other factors that should be considered. I’m not against IQ entirely, there are some situations, for example, if you’re trying to determine whether someone is intellectually disabled when you’re deciding whether to put them in a prison or in a mental institution, IQ is useful. But I feel like IQ is sort of useless for anything else. Because, for example, what job can you think of where "high IQ" is a better metric than whether someone has a degree or not? It doesn’t exist.
This is the best study to look at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27747412
IQ is strongly linked to job performance.
Degrees are not. There are necessary degrees to even get started in a particular field, but I'm not talking about that.
Employees with non-professional degrees will often get jobs where the degree isn't even a requirement. The unemployment rate for degree holders is very close to HS grads right now. The myth that any degree leads to a better career stems from students not understanding correlation and causation: wealthy people with connections will spend 4 years at the resort studying something impractical but interesting. That leads to a correlation between people making money and having a degree. That correlation was used to push college on everyone, and now the correlation is quickly shrinking and you have people from working-class backgrounds that are in a lot of debt, who missed out on years of career development, and are working mediocre jobs next to HS grads.
> IQ isn’t a thing that people have and then one day a scientist discovered IQ. IQ is a thing that was invented by people.
The general factor can be measured and used to predict life outcomes. How is that possible if it doesn't exist?
> The problem is, IQ attempts to reduce the most complex organ in the human body down to one number.
No, IQ only aims to measure G. There's nothing about it that rejects additional parts of human intelligence.
> Now, that number might be useful for something, but there are definitely other factors that should be considered. I’m not against IQ entirely, there are some situations, for example, if you’re trying to determine whether someone is intellectually disabled when you’re deciding whether to put them in a prison or in a mental institution, IQ is useful. But I feel like IQ is sort of useless for anything else. Because, for example, what job can you think of where "high IQ" is a better metric than whether someone has a degree or not? It doesn’t exist.
This is the best study to look at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27747412
IQ is strongly linked to job performance.
Degrees are not. There are necessary degrees to even get started in a particular field, but I'm not talking about that.
Employees with non-professional degrees will often get jobs where the degree isn't even a requirement. The unemployment rate for degree holders is very close to HS grads right now. The myth that any degree leads to a better career stems from students not understanding correlation and causation: wealthy people with connections will spend 4 years at the resort studying something impractical but interesting. That leads to a correlation between people making money and having a degree. That correlation was used to push college on everyone, and now the correlation is quickly shrinking and you have people from working-class backgrounds that are in a lot of debt, who missed out on years of career development, and are working mediocre jobs next to HS grads.
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,483
@1,381,479 (T-34)
It's not an assumption if there's data showing predictive power. People that can solve generalized problems end up doing well on unrelated tests of intelligence, and have much better life outcomes after adjusting for race, socioeconomic status, and many other factors.
It's not an assumption if there's data showing predictive power. People that can solve generalized problems end up doing well on unrelated tests of intelligence, and have much better life outcomes after adjusting for race, socioeconomic status, and many other factors.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 9 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,484
@1,381,482 (E)
Hypothetically, if what you’re saying is true, that IQ exists and people with higher IQs are more successful, then doesn’t that imply that the system is fair because more intelligent people are becoming more successful, therefore there’s nothing we need to do about it?
Hypothetically, if what you’re saying is true, that IQ exists and people with higher IQs are more successful, then doesn’t that imply that the system is fair because more intelligent people are becoming more successful, therefore there’s nothing we need to do about it?
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,485
@previous (T-34)
No, because there's a difference between "they did better than lower IQ people at the same starting position" and "they ended up in a position that matches their ability".
They are making progress despite an unfair system, and usually with a lot of wasted time. If it were legal, corporations could put them into a spot that was more appropriate much sooner and they'd have the opportunity to move beyond where they otherwise would have.
No, because there's a difference between "they did better than lower IQ people at the same starting position" and "they ended up in a position that matches their ability".
They are making progress despite an unfair system, and usually with a lot of wasted time. If it were legal, corporations could put them into a spot that was more appropriate much sooner and they'd have the opportunity to move beyond where they otherwise would have.
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,487
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 8 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,488
@1,381,481 (T-34)
> The government also tends to underreport the level of lead in drinking water.
This itself is a reason to take IQ tests seriously, while at the same time rejecting unsubstantiated racism. It would have made it easier to identify the fact that Flint, Michigan had a problem with their water if that city was getting lower IQ scores than other similar cities, even after accounting for race.
> The government also tends to underreport the level of lead in drinking water.
This itself is a reason to take IQ tests seriously, while at the same time rejecting unsubstantiated racism. It would have made it easier to identify the fact that Flint, Michigan had a problem with their water if that city was getting lower IQ scores than other similar cities, even after accounting for race.
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 months ago, 45 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,489
@1,381,487 (T-34)
Laws against IQ tests would be evidence of that. If you make it illegal to use intelligence as a factor in hiring, then that is discrimination against intelligent people.
Laws against IQ tests would be evidence of that. If you make it illegal to use intelligence as a factor in hiring, then that is discrimination against intelligent people.
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,490
@1,381,488 (E)
Not really, I mean, the water was actually completely safe, but when it happened the water wasn’t even clear. They started getting the water from the Flint river instead of the Detroit river and Flint used to manufacture a lot of cars before the manufacturing went overseas. But the Flint river is still so polluted nobody would think about touching that water.
Not really, I mean, the water was actually completely safe, but when it happened the water wasn’t even clear. They started getting the water from the Flint river instead of the Detroit river and Flint used to manufacture a lot of cars before the manufacturing went overseas. But the Flint river is still so polluted nobody would think about touching that water.
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,491
@1,381,489 (E)
Do you think it would be discrimination to for example, not hire someone on the basis that they’re autistic?
Do you think it would be discrimination to for example, not hire someone on the basis that they’re autistic?
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 44 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,492
@1,381,478 (T-34)
Are you suggesting we deny the science behind IQ, simply because someone could come to the wrong conclusion? That would be an argument against many other scientific studies, not just psychometrics.
Are you suggesting we deny the science behind IQ, simply because someone could come to the wrong conclusion? That would be an argument against many other scientific studies, not just psychometrics.
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,493
@1,381,490 (T-34)
The Flint water thing wasn’t a mistake, or a thing that was discovered by accident, it was actually an intentional decision that the government made. The water in Flint wasn’t always dangerous.
The Flint water thing wasn’t a mistake, or a thing that was discovered by accident, it was actually an intentional decision that the government made. The water in Flint wasn’t always dangerous.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,494
@1,381,491 (T-34)
It would be discrimination by definition. Whether it's legal or not depends on the jurisdiction, but it can be legal to discriminate against people with intellectual disabilities if it negatively impacts their ability to do the job.
It would be discrimination by definition. Whether it's legal or not depends on the jurisdiction, but it can be legal to discriminate against people with intellectual disabilities if it negatively impacts their ability to do the job.
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,495
@1,381,493 (T-34)
Alright, but that doesn't change the point I'm making in general. If IQ is measured, it gives epidemiologists a new map to use when looking for problems.
Alright, but that doesn't change the point I'm making in general. If IQ is measured, it gives epidemiologists a new map to use when looking for problems.
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 8 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,496
@1,381,494 (E)
So what percentage of the population do you think has an IQ low enough to justify not hiring them on the basis of IQ over someone with a higher IQ?
So what percentage of the population do you think has an IQ low enough to justify not hiring them on the basis of IQ over someone with a higher IQ?
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,497
@
(Edited 47 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,498
@1,381,496 (T-34)
That's a decision for the people risking their money to bring them on.
@previous (T-34)
IQ is correlated to performance on math tests, but I've never suggested that IQ should be the one and only factor used in hiring.
If you're hiring a math teacher, there are a lot of aspects to consider like their knowledge of the topic, their charisma to keep the students paying attention, and their ability to phrase complex ideas in a way that helps the students actually remember the material.
The only assertion I'm making is that IQ should be allowed to be a factor, because there are studies showing it impacts job performance and more.
That's a decision for the people risking their money to bring them on.
@previous (T-34)
IQ is correlated to performance on math tests, but I've never suggested that IQ should be the one and only factor used in hiring.
If you're hiring a math teacher, there are a lot of aspects to consider like their knowledge of the topic, their charisma to keep the students paying attention, and their ability to phrase complex ideas in a way that helps the students actually remember the material.
The only assertion I'm making is that IQ should be allowed to be a factor, because there are studies showing it impacts job performance and more.
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,500
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,502
I mean, the United States is only 4% of the world population but we account for 25% of the world economy. I think I’d be more concerned about eliminating poverty in countries in Africa than making western countries more economically productive.
T-34 triple-posted this 6 months ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,503
@previous (T-34)
Of course it doesn’t feel like we’re that wealthy, because 1% of Americans have 30% of the wealth.
Of course it doesn’t feel like we’re that wealthy, because 1% of Americans have 30% of the wealth.
T-34 quadruple-posted this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,504
Then the bottom 50% of Americans have 2.5% of the wealth and the bottom 50% of people on Earth have 2% of the worlds wealth.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 months ago, 47 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,507
@1,381,500 (T-34)
I already said why I see value in it. Why do you think it shouldn't be allowed?
@1,381,502 (T-34)
Poverty in Africa isn't an excuse to run things poorly in America.
@1,381,503 (T-34)
The typical American is still wealthier than the average person in the world, even after accounting for spending power.
I already said why I see value in it. Why do you think it shouldn't be allowed?
@1,381,502 (T-34)
Poverty in Africa isn't an excuse to run things poorly in America.
@1,381,503 (T-34)
The typical American is still wealthier than the average person in the world, even after accounting for spending power.
T-34 replied with this 6 months ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,511
@previous (E)
I wasn’t making an argument, I was asking because I’m wondering why you seem to care a lot about making specific "elite" people richer, and you don’t seem very concerned about the wellbeing of the majority. That wasn’t me trying to prove you wrong, I’m just wondering why you have a preference for caring about one thing over the other.
I wasn’t making an argument, I was asking because I’m wondering why you seem to care a lot about making specific "elite" people richer, and you don’t seem very concerned about the wellbeing of the majority. That wasn’t me trying to prove you wrong, I’m just wondering why you have a preference for caring about one thing over the other.
T-34 double-posted this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,512
@1,381,507 (E)
> The typical American is still wealthier than the average person in the world, even after accounting for spending power.
I’m not a saying that Americans have it worse off than others, I’m saying I would want the rest of the world to have the same living standards.
> The typical American is still wealthier than the average person in the world, even after accounting for spending power.
I’m not a saying that Americans have it worse off than others, I’m saying I would want the rest of the world to have the same living standards.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,814
@1,381,511 (T-34)
The well being of the majority is dependent on who's running everything.
Putting incompetent people in power because it makes more people feel included just harms everyone.
The well being of the majority is dependent on who's running everything.
Putting incompetent people in power because it makes more people feel included just harms everyone.
T-34 joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,833
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 4 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,382,886
@previous (T-34)
Democracy puts leaders in place who direct the country according to the goals of the electorate. Whatever those goals may be, you should want competent people carrying it out.
Presidents and governors are not doing the jobs themselves, they are delegating to many people who do the work.
Democracy puts leaders in place who direct the country according to the goals of the electorate. Whatever those goals may be, you should want competent people carrying it out.
Presidents and governors are not doing the jobs themselves, they are delegating to many people who do the work.