Politics - your views

Talk about everything but Rayman!

Moderator: English moderators

Joe Biden is...

Good
2
15%
Bad
4
31%
Whatever
7
54%
 
Total votes: 13

Xenon
Reflux
Posts: 37961
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 10:21 pm
Tings: 100426

Re: Politics - your views

Post by Xenon »

Hunchman801 wrote:Social progress has completely ended natural selection for humans, though. Now it's more like the movie Idiocracy where the dumb reproduce more than smart people, and the average IQ has been decreasing since the end of the Victoria era.
I wasn't talking in evolutionary terms there, just drawing comparisons between the two systems. Wicked old capitalism means companies brutally compete and that drives the standard of the product/service upwards, to the benefit of us all. Scale it up and you end up with better healthcare, better transport, beter education, better technology etc.

I didn't know about the declining IQs :lol: Maybe it's down to dumber people reproducing earlier in life, while smarter people focus on completing education and careers before having kids?
Image
Ambidextroid
Jano
Posts: 12706
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:04 am
Location: Jaffa Castle
Tings: 87726

Re: Politics - your views

Post by Ambidextroid »

Hunchman801 wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:03 pm Most of your criticism appear to be geared towards economic liberalism rather than capitalism, with a strong focus on inheritance, yet another practice that predates capitalism (and economic liberalism!) by millenia and can arguably be considered a wholly separate concept. Of course it's all intertwined, but isn't everything?
Yes, I suppose I'm criticising the current incarnations of what are commonly described as capitalist systems, not necessarily the purely ideological capitalism.
Xenon wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:13 pm Don't forget that allows us to enjoy our comfortable lifestyles though. It's responsible for pretty much anything you could associate with a good standard of living, which is part and parcel of quality of life. Just think about how shit every product and service you buy would be if the businesses responsible didn't care how much profits they made.
I did allude to this before, capitalism does give us good things, but it doesn't give us those things with the intention of being good for us. The intention is always to make profit, and if making good things makes profit then good things are made. But this leads to shady practices such as obfuscating details to make things seem better for us, bribing scientists into releasing research that suggests certain things are or are not bad for us etc. where the interest is not our benefit but making production cheaper.
Also I don't think that just because there isn't money to be made, things are going to be shit. Whether money is required to motivate people and drive innovation I think is a large topic in itself...
Xenon wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:13 pm What you say is kind of like survivial of the fittest in the animal world. Invariably there are casualties and it's harsh, but it also allows the species to evolve and improve. In the same way, capitalism is for the betterment of society.
Survival of the fittest may be how we got here, but I think most people can agree it's not the kind of society we want to be living in today. It's true that competition in business means there is a motivation to make products that we are likely to want to buy (again, not necessarily good for us), but just like survival of the fittest the power lies largely in those who've inherited it, and hard work is not always going to be enough to beat the silver spoon.
Image
Steo
Rayman 3
Posts: 30561
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:57 pm
Location: Drink
Tings: 227721

Re: Politics - your views

Post by Steo »

I'm not sure if it works this way when it comes to people having kids. Some people are just naturally dumb, while some are gifted. Many people these days tend to be on the low IQ side though, I blame internet usage at a young age along with bad parenting. Both of those link together, as parents these days just hand a tablet or smart phone to a kid these days just to get them out of their hair. Even if a person who was brought up like this doesn't turn out dumb per say, they still end up lacking social awareness big time, and have no idea how to interact with others in a civilised manner. All they end up doing is blindly following others who they look up to; agreeing with them no matter what they say, even if they're a bad person.
Image
FC: 40210 | CF: 103059 | BOM: 94388 | LOTLD: 120486 | DOTK: 110450 | LS: 40810 | SBTC: 99693 | HH: 100028 | TOTL: 100563

TOTAL: 809687
Indy
Henchman 1000
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:22 pm
Location: Echoing Caves and my work department in a corner of my house.
Contact:
Tings: 8086

Re: Politics - your views

Post by Indy »

Hunchman801 wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:42 pm What are the views in question, though? Did he say that all of them actually cause trouble? A bit of research seems to indicate that the crime rate is significantly higher for Dutch citizens of Moroccan origin, but obviously that doesn't mean every single one of them.
He does think they're a problem in the country. Again, I can't find other sources that confirm this. Aside from interviews and legit news outlets. Like Telegraaf.
I could ask a relative to help me out, they might know more and better than I do.
What is true is that Geert really isn't a good guy. A political type with a shitty view on minorities, and painted our society a unrealistic and thus racist picture of Moroccans. And maybe other minority groups as well.
PSN: Toxic_Dragon_96
Twitter: DeltaVelocity
ScalieDan
Ptizêtre Vert
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:31 pm
Tings: 1176

Re: Politics - your views

Post by ScalieDan »

I see the mention of IQ here. Meanwhile IQ measurements habe been criticized a lot as originally they aimed measuring chance of success as a working member. Not actual intelligence.

Further, as far as I'm aware claims that intelligence is solid isn't so widely accepted but more over fluid but with limits from genetic reasons (a mix rather than pure genetics or all learned).

It's hard to say if we got worse or better.
We surely accomplished a lot, have way more complex things to learn. The stuff we learn in schools is dense and a lot.

The rise of problematic views such as QAnon or whatever aren't new in history.
If you look in the past, the things people believed are horrific and sound insanely dumb.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.timesofi ... 175145.cms
claims dumber
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/hu ... gests.html
claims nope and refutes first one

Now even refutation has issues as a person considered the smartest person who has ever lived definitely benefited from high level education from birth onwards. Well it actually caused him to have a horrible life but that's another story.

You cab probably find more articles about this nonsense and frankly, I hope no one takes IQ results seriously here to think they are a legit intelligence measurement.

The statement of maximum intelligence in 2nd article just makes me go ugh wtf.
As history kinda refuted that idea.


While people try to talk down on the world wide web, it helped humans to gain information faster than ever, find better teaching methods, share results, repeat studies etc.

If anything we currently see how certain groups get a lot louder. Now, I'm not an expert on why we perceive things this way or why stuff like breatharians and flat earthers get larger, while science also gets larger.
But intelligence claims... ugh please no.

Sometimes people who we think are dumb are trapped in a case of cult (like mormonism) or emotional prison (intellectual fear of giving up supernatural claims) or many other reasons. Aside from cognitive disabilities which would make this topic even harder to speak of.
If you get them out of the cult or free them from emotional fear (e.g. Fear of seeking knowledge due to god punishing you for eternal hell has been cited as reasons by individuals), can seek and educate and learn.

Analyse, understand, seek cause, seek solution.

Edit: here a link to a site talking a bit about IQ tests and its forms and correlating tests
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bound ... elligence/

and here a link to EI (emotional intelligence)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=d ... 8MR6IeuGQJ

I hope this is somewhat satisfying to why you shouldn't take it as literally measuring intelligence perfectly or so much so that you lust care. 1st link also mentions how the inflation of results leads to score adjustments.
Hunchman801
Bad Rayman
Posts: 79274
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 6:50 pm
Location: Paris, France
Contact:
Tings: 571060

Re: Politics - your views

Post by Hunchman801 »

PluMGMK wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:36 pm Has the average IQ been decreasing? (Or are you just alluding to the film?) I thought the Flynn effect was the phenomenon whereby it's been increasing. But then I just looked it up and apparently the reverse has been happening in certain cases more recently. And the reason I looked it up was because I'd forgotten the name of the effect. I think my IQ's been decreasing since the pandemic hit. :oops2:
Well, as shown in the links Dan posted, it looks like there might actually be a lack of consensus on the question, at least as far as Western countries are concerned. For example, this is the study I had in mind when writing this. And I should have specified, I was only talking about Western countries, not the rest of the planet, which has seen a lot more development since those times (something that could very well explain a rise in intelligence due to changes in environmental factors).
ScalieDan wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:26 am I see the mention of IQ here. Meanwhile IQ measurements habe been criticized a lot as originally they aimed measuring chance of success as a working member. Not actual intelligence.
Well that must have been their definition of intelligence then. The goal of IQ was always to measure intelligence.
ScalieDan wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:26 am Further, as far as I'm aware claims that intelligence is solid isn't so widely accepted but more over fluid but with limits from genetic reasons (a mix rather than pure genetics or all learned).
Of course intelligence is determined both by genetic and environmental factors. It doesn't change the fact that it can be measured, provided we can define it. And that's where things get tricky...
ScalieDan wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:26 am You cab probably find more articles about this nonsense and frankly, I hope no one takes IQ results seriously here to think they are a legit intelligence measurement.
Why not? It aims to measure the g factor, usually referred to as general intelligence. Is it a good proxy for actual intelligence? Well, there's no one answer to this, because there's no one definition of intelligence. At least the g factor correlates positively with academic achievement, job attainment, income and job performance, for what it's worth. But then again you can score highly with regard to general intelligence and yet have a poor social intelligence (it's sometimes the case with autists), while others have a lower g factor but high social intelligence (think street smarts). There's so many facets to intelligence that it makes it tricky to define, and how can we even agree on a measurement if we don't agree on a definition first?
ScalieDan wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:26 am The rise of problematic views such as QAnon or whatever aren't new in history.
If you look in the past, the things people believed are horrific and sound insanely dumb.
We would probably still believe those things if it weren't for all the scientific discoveries and widespread information. It's just that despite those, people nowadays still manage to believe stuff like the crap you mentioned.
ScalieDan wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:26 am Now even refutation has issues as a person considered the smartest person who has ever lived definitely benefited from high level education from birth onwards. Well it actually caused him to have a horrible life but that's another story.
Well of course they have, because of the importance of environmental factors with regard to general intelligence.
Xenon wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:41 pm I wasn't talking in evolutionary terms there, just drawing comparisons between the two systems. Wicked old capitalism means companies brutally compete and that drives the standard of the product/service upwards, to the benefit of us all. Scale it up and you end up with better healthcare, better transport, beter education, better technology etc.
It's not capitalism though, like I explained in my previous posts. :P
Xenon wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:41 pm I didn't know about the declining IQs :lol: Maybe it's down to dumber people reproducing earlier in life, while smarter people focus on completing education and careers before having kids?
That's basically the plot of Idiocracy. :lol:
Indy wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:39 pm He does think they're a problem in the country. Again, I can't find other sources that confirm this. Aside from interviews and legit news outlets. Like Telegraaf.
I could ask a relative to help me out, they might know more and better than I do.
What is true is that Geert really isn't a good guy. A political type with a shitty view on minorities, and painted our society a unrealistic and thus racist picture of Moroccans. And maybe other minority groups as well.
Yeah, I'm curious to hear what he said, exactly! :o
insert sig for RPC's 17th bday
ScalieDan
Ptizêtre Vert
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:31 pm
Tings: 1176

Re: Politics - your views

Post by ScalieDan »

Hunchman801 wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:13 pm Well that must have been their definition of intelligence then. The goal of IQ was always to measure intelligence.
Aiming to measure intelligence doesn't mean they really measure that. More on that later.
Hunchman801 wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:13 pm Of course intelligence is determined both by genetic and environmental factors. It doesn't change the fact that it can be measured, provided we can define it. And that's where things get tricky...
Oh there are positions that claim intelligence has a fixed biological limit as in, your genetics are the big part that essentially decides your intelligence and others who say (besides mental disabilities) intelligence on every level is available to all.
I think this issue is about is intelligence fluid or fixed. Looked into it myself in the past. Not aaaallll tooo much though x3.
Hunchman801 wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:13 pm Why not? It aims to measure the g factor, usually referred to as general intelligence. Is it a good proxy for actual intelligence? Well, there's no one answer to this, because there's no one definition of intelligence. At least the g factor correlates positively with academic achievement, job attainment, income and job performance, for what it's worth. But then again you can score highly with regard to general intelligence and yet have a poor social intelligence (it's sometimes the case with autists), while others have a lower g factor but high social intelligence (think street smarts). There's so many facets to intelligence that it makes it tricky to define, and how can we even agree on a measurement if we don't agree on a definition first?
I'm aware of g-factor which is just another system developed from the attempts at measuring intelligence. Social intelligences is usually referred to as EI (emotional intelligence)
Like how "people with high EI" would avoid certain phrases in social environment or how they interact on an emotional social level. I think I gave a link to it.

g-factor, besides it's obvious predictive power on certain aspects of success, isn't necessarily the best indicator as the links I showed explained. The tests might be biased, might favour those from specific backgrounds, might focus on areas you happen to be weaker while other tests would have uses areaa you are better at (a test for universal skills is really hard to make) and more to point out.
Idk, I know the link is like, a lot of text but worth reading.

more on my wording later
Hunchman801 wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:13 pm Well of course they have, because of the importance of environmental factors with regard to general intelligence.
that wasn't my point. They kinda claimed that the country essentially reached the limit as of now. However, we do know of methods that would result in higher IQ results but are less joyful and probably even more options you can look into that don't take away joy. So I see that point they made as just wrong.
I feel like explaining that IQ progress isn't linear would already be a better approach but oh well.
Hunchman801 wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:13 pm We would probably still believe those things if it weren't for all the scientific discoveries and widespread information. It's just that despite those, people nowadays still manage to believe stuff like the crap you mentioned.
Even in past there existed people who attempted scientific method, they just got hated on. I mean you know how science and the religious heavy world weren't friends I think x3.
Also, looking into if all of those modern issues are really low IQ people may show that it's not necessarily IQ but other factors that cause these.

I mean we know of indoctrination, we know of intelligent people who really said bs and so on and so forth.

Also, must say, a big chunk of the insane views comes from USA/popularized in USA. USA being a country many studies happen... meh.

I think it's very easy for us to say "they must be dumb to believe X" if maybe there is much more to it. So is a few of a physicist who thinks that stupidity in flat earthers may not be the most prominent factor but it's not my point in debating that, rather bring awareness of it having other causes.

Now to my "laters" I mentioned
These tests, as much as they desire to measure intelligence, often fail to truly show your IQ but a potential hint at where you might end up.
Online IQ tests I would already strongly advise against. IQ tests or tests aiming for g-factor (which have a strong overlap) are usually something you pay to get into a group of people for an IQ test and they are just overall more reliable tests with the research behind them.

I said it provocative that these shouldn't be taken seriously and not seen as really measuring your intelligence as while they have a considerable accuracy for certain aspects,
1. a favoured position is fluid intelligence, meaning this test would be a moment capture rather than showing your real capabilities.
2. It may have used areas you were weak at
3. Had a bad day
4. You used a shitty source to test
5. Questions and tasks were culturally missing you, screwing your data over.
and more points.

I get that people care about IQ but I hope people here don't fall into this mindset.
What matters are the things you do, you show, you live for.
If your arguments are great in what you love and want to promote, maybe you just work better with intrinsic motivation.
Maybe the typical way of testing is just not for you but irl you found your own way.

We have g-factor, IQ, EI and probably more I couldn't remember or haven't looked into yet. This isn't by any means a clear subject and as you said, defining it is a problem.

One last thing, being successful in school, workplace and whatnot can have very little to do with your intelligence and often it's suspected that those that do well on IQ simply have good conditions. Obviously not always but just mentioning that.
Steo
Rayman 3
Posts: 30561
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:57 pm
Location: Drink
Tings: 227721

Re: Politics - your views

Post by Steo »

Education doesn't always mean a lot when it comes to intelligence. I always hated school, hardly ever paid attention because I had no interest, took days off all the time, and I still passed my tests. I have seen others who went to school much more often than I did who actually paid attention, yet they still didn't end up being highly intellectual; even done worse than me on their tests.

Most of what I've learned after I hit my teens was all stuff from outside school, and my typing improved grammatically a long time after finishing school. My interests such as music and technology, I learned all of those things myself. I didn't start playing guitar until I finished secondary school, and all schools ever taught when it came to technology was word processing. My interests in technology stem far from word processing, yet I still learned more about this on my own ironically.

Maybe I'm just better at learning things by myself, but I always had this feeling that education didn't teach me anything I wanted to know after I got to secondary school. I guess it depends on one's interests, but my hobbies and interests barely relate to anything that the education system over here teaches.
Image
FC: 40210 | CF: 103059 | BOM: 94388 | LOTLD: 120486 | DOTK: 110450 | LS: 40810 | SBTC: 99693 | HH: 100028 | TOTL: 100563

TOTAL: 809687
Post Reply