|
TLM3101 posted:Oh boy! Glennbeckistan 2.0! If it fails (it will fail) he'll just say they didn't do it right or that some vague entity caused it to fail by violating NAP or some poo poo. In his mind libertopia cannot fail it can only be failed.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2021 16:33 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 18:48 |
|
Elephant Ambush posted:If it fails (it will fail) he'll just say they didn't do it right or that some vague entity caused it to fail by violating NAP or some poo poo. In his mind libertopia cannot fail it can only be failed. "It was all going well until they voted that measure forbidding FreedomHexxer1488 from doing live-ammo militia drills on Main Street without advance warning! Next time, it will be perfect. We'll spare every expense."
|
# ? Feb 5, 2021 16:38 |
|
Karia posted:Anyone who thinks cars are great needs to work in modern automotive manufacturing. It's utterly terrifying. I set up a production machining line which makes oil pump cover plates for a car you have definitely heard of. I'm not proud. It's the worst thing I've ever done. We spent months setting up a production line and making it bullet proof so that the fuckwits who run the company could hire 12 temps for 24/7 production and make 1.5 million parts per year. One person picks up blanks out of a box and puts them on the inbound conveyor, the other person takes parts off the outbound conveyor and puts them into another box. They burn through temps: it's terrible, mind-numbing work that they would automate in a hot second if they could figure out how to stop the blanks sticking together from residual oil. So what is your point exactly? That we shouldn't manufacture cars? There are many, many jobs that are not particularly desirable but are necessary for a functioning society. You can certainly argue that workers who take such jobs ought to be treated well, paid fairly and so forth and we can have a discussion about that. But you seem to be making a blanket condemnation of mass manufacturing in a much broader way. I absolutely could recount stories of lovely jobs I've had over the years. I've dealt with incompetent bosses, poor management, low pay, and many other undesirable things. But not once did I think that these personal unpleasant experiences meant that the entire industry I was a small part of was at fault or ought not to exist. I'm not sure this is what you are claiming, maybe you could clarify. The point is that there are a ton of entry level jobs in a complex economy that are undesirable. Almost all of us spend some time taking these jobs, until we've gained enough experience to move up into more desirable positions or save enough to strike out on our own as entrepreneurs.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 03:38 |
|
polymathy posted:So what is your point exactly? That we shouldn't manufacture cars? They are certainly a very good example of why the search for profit extraction creates highly wasteful applications of technology and industrial/social processes!
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 03:57 |
|
We really shouldn't
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 03:58 |
|
Why waste the labour of countless workers driving themselves to work, the fuel to run the cars, the maintenence of the roads, the land to store the cars while the worker isn't driving it, the healthcare expenses resulting from accidents, the materials making things that will be rusting in a junkyard before long, instead of centralizing the transportation of labour, the operation of thousands of tonnes of transport capacity in a handful of crew, the energy efficiency of steel on rail, the longevity of locomotives, the opportunity to standardize parts and production of the entire transportation fleet? Imagine the great things you could accomplish with all that saved labour. Well, unless the important thing was selling cars and fuel, in which case the waste is really a positive, because the more they waste the more you can sell.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:05 |
|
polymathy posted:The point is that there are a ton of entry level jobs in a complex economy that are undesirable. Almost all of us spend some time taking these jobs, until we've gained enough experience to move up into more desirable positions or save enough to strike out on our own as entrepreneurs.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:10 |
|
Furthermore, if unpleasant and difficult jobs are necessary in an economy, why are we supposed to treat them as temporary? After all if somebody has to do them, why do we assume nobody should do them for long? That seems inefficient, because if you have to keep training new people to do the job then they aren't going to be as good at it as someone who has done it for a while. Why do people have to start out doing bad jobs until they can do good jobs? If all the jobs need doing that seems a bit weird? Why wouldn't we invest resources into making the difficult jobs less difficult, or the unpleasant jobs less unpleasant so that we can ensure that these (again, in your own words, necessary) jobs can be done by people who are good at them for as long as possible?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:13 |
|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:lmfao @ still thinking iq is a meaningful measurement and not an elitist, and indeed racist, tool used to otherize people whose iq doesn't stack up IQ is not a perfect measurement of intelligence to be sure, but are you honestly denying that intelligence differs between people? I don't recall ever taking a formal IQ test, but I did take the SATs and what are the SATs besides a test that measures intelligence, or at least a certain type of intelligence? If intelligence doesn't differ between people then there would be no reason for the SATs to exist and no reason to have any qualifications for admission to college whatsoever. I'm loving floored that you honestly suggest that IQ is an inherently racist concept. I can understand you thinking that a racial difference in IQ, as in the case of Charles Murray and The Bell Curve, is racist, but IQ differences between individuals? That is not in dispute among anyone who knows a loving thing about human intelligence. Also, differences in IQ have no bearing on the intrinsic human worth of individuals. It says nothing about the moral character of individuals, or their wisdom. It simply measures a certain type of cognitive ability.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:15 |
|
polymathy posted:If intelligence doesn't differ between people then there would be no reason for the SATs to exist and no reason to have any qualifications for admission to college whatsoever. jrod are you familiar with an e-meter? It is a device used by scientologists to measure how many thetans, which are tiny alien ghosts, live inside you. This is important, because you need to have the right e-meter readings in order to advance in the religion. E-meters are extremely expensive to buy. If thetans were not a real thing, jrod, then why do e-meters exist? If thetans did not exist then there would be no reason for scientology to exist, and the idea that you can measure fundamental qualities of the soul by plugging people into an overcomplicated multimeter, would be absurd.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:18 |
|
Yes all the captains of industry that started on the lowest rung of the later... The emeralds Musk walked around with as a kid were due to his own labor
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:18 |
|
Somfin posted:He won't watch this lol Yeah, honestly I'm not going to spent 3 hours watching a YouTube video about The Bell Curve. We're not talking about race and IQ, or Charles Murray. The subject at hand is whether or not intelligence differs between individuals. Anyone with any familiarity with the real world understands that intelligence differs wildly between people. Yes, Tesla having an IQ of 310 is pretty unlikely. However, I think a fair estimate is that Tesla's IQ was somewhere between 160 and 200 given what we know about his accomplishments and the verified IQ scores of his contemporaries.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:22 |
|
polymathy posted:The point is that there are a ton of entry level jobs in a complex economy that are undesirable. Almost all of us spend some time taking these jobs, until we've gained enough experience to move up into more desirable positions or save enough to strike out on our own as entrepreneurs. Well, we already know that you've not ever worked in a large company for even a day of your life, so I guess that leaves you with defining "entrepreneur" as "person who sells pirated dvds."
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:22 |
|
polymathy posted:So what is your point exactly? That we shouldn't manufacture cars? I mean, I wasn't laying out an argument. That was a personal anecdote about how much mass manufacturing sucks, in response to someone talking about how mass manufacturing is bad for the environment. My experience in automotive supply chains has, certainly, been instrumental in shaping my world view. But this isn't really the thread for me to expound on minimalism or my peculiar brand of technological cynicism and political disaffection. But I would be interested in hearing more about your lovely jobs and such. How have these things affected your world view? We (kind of) know what you believe, but I've never heard you talk about why you believe it. What life experiences and influences have caused you to be drawn to libertarianism? What personal benefits do you think it would bring to you? How has the existing system affected you and others around you such that you think such a radical alteration of our current values is necessary? You want people to engage with you in good faith, that sort of information is what'll help. It seems like you want us to think that you just rationally assessed every possible political structure and came to the natural logical conclusion that libertarianism is best, but people don't work like that. Nobody does. Everyone's beliefs are shaped by their experiences, and you'll be a lot more likely to find some points of commonality if you start sharing your experiences rather than just dumping links to mises.org articles. Tell us a bit about yourself, Jrod. (Though I say I'm not going to talk about it, but I will plug a book: Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist, by Paul Kingsnorth. Here's an article by the same name which covers the same basic premise. I don't think you'll like it.)
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:24 |
|
polymathy posted:There are many, many jobs that are not particularly desirable but are necessary for a functioning society. You can certainly argue that workers who take such jobs ought to be treated well, paid fairly and so forth and we can have a discussion about that. But No, we can't, you insufferable piece of poo poo. There is no discussion. Workers who take such jobs ought to be treated well, paid fairly, and so forth. Full stop.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:24 |
|
polymathy posted:Yes, Tesla having an IQ of 310 is pretty unlikely. However, I think a fair estimate is that Tesla's IQ was somewhere between 160 and 200 given what we know about his accomplishments and the verified IQ scores of his contemporaries. You do realize that the whole loving point of people ragging on your IQ comment is that intelligence and merit clearly do not portend success? After all, even though Tesla is, by your estimate, one of the smartest humans to ever live, he did not achieve industrial success.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:24 |
|
I'd say Teslas IQ must have been in the high 80s at best. I mean he was too dumb to strike it rich. What a pathetic moron. Edit: or what ^^^ said
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:25 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Furthermore, if unpleasant and difficult jobs are necessary in an economy, why are we supposed to treat them as temporary? After all if somebody has to do them, why do we assume nobody should do them for long? That seems inefficient, because if you have to keep training new people to do the job then they aren't going to be as good at it as someone who has done it for a while. Why do people have to start out doing bad jobs until they can do good jobs? If all the jobs need doing that seems a bit weird? Why wouldn't we invest resources into making the difficult jobs less difficult, or the unpleasant jobs less unpleasant so that we can ensure that these (again, in your own words, necessary) jobs can be done by people who are good at them for as long as possible? This kinda demonstrates the main problem with modern capitalism.* If you're not winning you're losing. If you decide you're happy working 40 hours a week on an assembly line, or sweeping floors, or driving a truck from one end of the country to another, you shouldn't have to pursue a managerial position just to keep your kids from starving. Yet that's the assumption built into the modern economy, not that everyone can be the CEO if they just work hard enough, but that everyone should want to start their own business and you're a failure who deserves to be poor if you don't. *"When did Capitalism become reality?" Is a serious question deserving a serious historian, not an unqualified internet shitposter but for the sake of convenience when I say "Modern Capitalism" I mean "The dominant economic theory of America and Western Europe from 1890 onwards"
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:26 |
|
polymathy posted:Yeah, honestly I'm not going to spent 3 hours watching a YouTube video about The Bell Curve. Why is IQ so important to you? Why does being able to (and I cannot put enough quotes around this) "quantify" intelligence so integral to your arguments?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:29 |
|
Perestroika posted:IQ is of severely limited utility even at the best of times, when you're doing controlled tests and apply them to a very narrow factor. If you're trying Trying to assign IQ to third parties after the fact it is absolutely meaningless and about as accurate as a horoscope. What do you mean by "assign IQ to third parties after the fact"? IQ tests are imperfect attempts to quantify a real thing, which is human intelligence. Whatever it's deficiencies, it's obvious that intelligence differs substantially between individuals. Therefore, I am arguing in favor or hierarchies of competence. Democracy, whether in the workplace or outside of it, all suffer from the problem that they elevate the opinion of the less knowledgeable, less competent with the more knowledgeable and more competent.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:33 |
|
polymathy posted:What do you mean by "assign IQ to third parties after the fact"? Intelligence isn't competence.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:36 |
|
DarklyDreaming posted:This kinda demonstrates the main problem with modern capitalism.* If you're not winning you're losing. If you decide you're happy working 40 hours a week on an assembly line, or sweeping floors, or driving a truck from one end of the country to another, you shouldn't have to pursue a managerial position just to keep your kids from starving. Yet that's the assumption built into the modern economy, not that everyone can be the CEO if they just work hard enough, but that everyone should want to start their own business and you're a failure who deserves to be poor if you don't. Indeed, I am very good at my job because I have done it for quite a while, I can and do help train a lot of new people who start the job. I could, I think, offer quite a lot of insight into how to make the job easier because I am very familiar with the processes and could definitely offer insights into how to streamline them because it's something I would really like to be able to do myself. But, of course, because my job does not pay very well, I have neither the capital to start up my own competing business doing the same thing, nor is anyone at the company interested in my input, and as a result labour time of everyone who does my job (which is the majority of the company) is constantly wasted. Which is unfortunate because it is our labour which makes the money for the company. If the process were improved it would be better for everyone, but I have no incentive to offer my time to do that, I would receive no remuneration for doing so, and even if I could the structure of the company exists to ensure that I wouldn't be listened to anyway, and the wage is too low to facilitate developing the idea by myself. To me this seems quite inefficient, but being a mere minimum wage peon, I am sure I must defer to one of the many managers that have come and gone in the years I have worked here.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:37 |
|
Democracy, with equality of opportunity and social safety nets, is literally the only way you CAN elevate the more intelligent and incompetent, rather than whoever the king thinks sounds smart or looks hot, while everything is run by his kids.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:37 |
|
Who What Now posted:Intelligence isn't competence. See also why those obsess about IQ never seem to accomplish anything *cough cough* Billy Gnosis fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Feb 6, 2021 |
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:38 |
|
SpaceSDoorGunner posted:Jrod since you decided to split the dumbest finest hair over the civil war thing, I have a new question- A more interesting question to me is why multiple people brought up the subject of race when I mentioned the concept of "IQ". I've never read The Bell Curve and I consider Charles Murray to be a mixed bag. He's certainly not one of my heroes by any stretch. I suspect that the reason some leftists recoil at the concept of IQ is that it strikes at the heart of their egalitarian suppositions. They'd prefer to view every person as fundamentally equal, with their unequal station in life prescribed by some unjust outside system oppressing them. To be sure many people are held back or oppressed by the State, by Corporate power and by many different factors. But people are different and any just society will lead to unequal outcomes based on inherent, and benign, natural differences between individuals.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:42 |
|
IQ would not, in any way, undermine the idea that all people have the capacity to be equal, and that inequality is imposed upon them by outside forces, because IQ does not measure a quality of a person's soul, jrod, we have already established that you need an e-meter for that. IQ measures their response to an environmental stimulus, i.e an IQ test, which may be influenced by other environmental stimuli, i.e outside forces. I appreciate that this is dangerously close to empiricism, but unfortunately that is the paradigm through which I perceive the world. I grant you that it isn't capable of disproving the praxeological assertion that IQ does measure a quality of the soul, because you say it does.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:46 |
|
polymathy posted:I've never read The Bell Curve and I consider Charles Murray to be a mixed bag. He's certainly not one of my heroes by any stretch. Wait... what? I distinctly remember a long conversation where you were trying to claim that while The Bell Curve may be offensive and distasteful, and the analysis of the science may be flawed, none of its basic scientific work had been disproven. Somehow you toxxed over this or something? Then when people pointed out that there were major scientific holes (IIRC, something to do with leaded gasoline?), you never acknowledged it, and threatened to do a chargeback if you got banned. Then you got banned. Am I hallucinating? Mixing you up with a different poster? I'll be damned if I hunt through every page of this and the other thread to find it.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:49 |
|
OwlFancier posted:And the reason for that is that military force is necessary to protect the power of the US economy. The US needs to maintain control over as much of the world as possible to ensure favorable access to its resources for its private sector to exploit, and a significant portion of that sector needs the US to maintain a large military because they are involved in supplying it. This should be an area that Libertarians and Leftists can agree on. I don't care what the private sector wants in terms of resources, imperialism is immoral. Period. If a business wants access to a natural resource in another country, they better be prepared to pay the market price for that resource or do without it. I know that Leftists consider imperialism to be a natural extension or necessary adjunct to capitalism. What you need to understand is that Libertarianism isn't necessarily in favor of capitalism and we are absolutely, fundamentally opposed to imperialism.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:51 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Furthermore, if unpleasant and difficult jobs are necessary in an economy, why are we supposed to treat them as temporary? After all if somebody has to do them, why do we assume nobody should do them for long? That seems inefficient, because if you have to keep training new people to do the job then they aren't going to be as good at it as someone who has done it for a while. Why do people have to start out doing bad jobs until they can do good jobs? If all the jobs need doing that seems a bit weird? Why wouldn't we invest resources into making the difficult jobs less difficult, or the unpleasant jobs less unpleasant so that we can ensure that these (again, in your own words, necessary) jobs can be done by people who are good at them for as long as possible? What FuckWit also does is that it constantly repeats this fallacy about advancing to a better job later, as if everyone is morally obliged to go through some sort of soul-sucking shite-job purgatory before they can have any personal dignity. You will notice that it fails to mention that somebody will always be going this unpleasant job even if all previous workers move on to something better (they won't). It never has a thought for making a terrible job less terrible, only a vague delusion (read: veiled narrative) that people who work shite jobs will be better for it somehow (they won't) and ascend to better things later (most won't). FuckWit's messianic fable sure sounds a lot like the lies of Capitalism and the Just-World Fallacy, doesn't it?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:52 |
|
Who What Now posted:Jrod what's your IQ? Whip it out. As far as I recall, I've never had a formal IQ test. Like many others though I have taken the SAT test. I scored 1300. Above average, perhaps gifted, but certainly not genius level. This would probably translate to an IQ somewhere between 120 and 130.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:55 |
|
polymathy posted:What do you mean by "assign IQ to third parties after the fact"? You are doing this with Tesla. Rather than even using an IQ test, as flawed as it might be, you say "this historical person was smart, therefor they would've done exceptionally well on the IQ test". It makes a flawed measurement a just-so story, and like all just-so stories it's useless except to feel vindicated about positions you already hold.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:56 |
|
JustJeff88 posted:What FuckWit also does is that it constantly repeats this fallacy about advancing to a better job later, as if everyone is morally obliged to go through some sort of soul-sucking shite-job purgatory before they can have any personal dignity. You will notice that it fails to mention that somebody will always be going this unpleasant job even if all previous workers move on to something better (they won't). It never has a thought for making a terrible job less terrible, only a vague delusion (read: veiled narrative) that people who work shite jobs will be better for it somehow (they won't) and ascend to better things later (most won't). FuckWit's messianic fable sure sounds a lot like the lies of Capitalism and the Just-World Fallacy, doesn't it? But you see, it's not a contradiction when the justice system you pay for says your company is free to not classify them as people. Edit: Hate to break it to you, 1300 is not gifted, sorry. I guess it's minimum wage for you. Oh wait you don't believe in it Billy Gnosis fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Feb 6, 2021 |
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:57 |
|
polymathy posted:This should be an area that Libertarians and Leftists can agree on. I don't care what the private sector wants in terms of resources, imperialism is immoral. Period. If a business wants access to a natural resource in another country, they better be prepared to pay the market price for that resource or do without it. If you want to be an ancom, or libsoc, then that is absolutely grand, welcome to the club, but yes, I understand that imperialism, militarism, forcible seizure, control, and protection of resources, is necessary to capitalism and to all forms of private property, private property being necessarily constructed and upheld by the threat of force, because nobody would recognize it voluntarily when it comes to denying people the products of labour. So you can be "not necessarily in favor of capitalism" and that's lovely, but I vehemently oppose it because I understand how it functions. If you dislike the effects, you must dislike the cause, anything else is either ignorance or dishonesty.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 04:58 |
|
OwlFancier posted:If you want to be an ancom, or libsoc, then that is absolutely grand, welcome to the club, but yes, I understand that imperialism, militarism, forcible seizure, control, and protection of resources, is necessary to capitalism and to all forms of private property, private property being necessarily constructed and upheld by the threat of force, because nobody would recognize it voluntarily when it comes to denying people the products of labour. If FuckWit and another "ancap" formed a wrestling tag-team, they would be called "Ignorance and Dishonesty" - the two founding pillars of their degenerate world view.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 05:01 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Even if we accept the idea that there are super smart IQ guys who should be given preferential power over people who are not that, who's gonna decide who they are? Clearly the common plebs can not understand who is and isn't a big brain boy. So all the big brain boys will have to decide among themselves who is suitable to make decisions. You have to define what you mean by "preferential power over people". As a libertarian, I'm opposed to the initiation of force against anyone. What I do support is entrepreneurs who have unique and uncommon competence in a particular sphere being able to make decisions about their own company and / or factory without being hamstrung by the democratic decrees of their employees who may not have the knowledge or competence to render such verdicts.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 05:01 |
|
polymathy posted:As far as I recall, I've never had a formal IQ test. FYI: no it (probably) wouldn't. 1300 composite score is in roughly the 86th percentile. The 86th percentile of IQ is 116 (by definition, as has ben discussed previously.) Of course, it would depend on when you took it, but at least over the last few years it's been pretty steady, and I don't care enough to hunt down more data. https://blog.prepscholar.com/histor...k%20the%20test. Meanwhile, I got a 32 on the ACT like ten years ago, which is in roughly the ~96th percentile. Since you want to establish a hierarchy of competency, we may as well do it based on our test scores, so that means I'm your boss now. EDIT: you know, if you want to get in a pissing contest over stupid dumb poo poo, go take the GRE, I've got some recent scores we can compare. It'll be fun, and objective, and totally not a way of laundering socioeconomic factors (combined with how well you can sit in a chair for four hours without freaking out) into a pseudorandom number generator. Karia fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Feb 6, 2021 |
# ? Feb 6, 2021 05:02 |
|
Karia posted:FYI: no it (probably) wouldn't. 1300 composite score is in roughly the 86th percentile. The 86th percentile of IQ is 116 (by definition, as has ben discussed previously.) Of course, it would depend on when you took it, but at least over the last few years it's been pretty steady, and I don't care enough to hunt down more data. I took the GRE and scored top 1% in verbal and top 2% in writing (quantitative was another story). With no humour whatsoever, I wanted to feel proud of myself but I mostly realised that the exam was utterly meaningless. I'm still proud of how I did on my A-levels which is something that fills me with shame and I would never admit to anyone who knew me personally.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 05:06 |
|
polymathy posted:You have to define what you mean by "preferential power over people". As a libertarian, I'm opposed to the initiation of force against anyone. That is what I mean by preferential power over people. If you decide something that affects my life without my input then you are utilizing your control over my environment to enforce your will on me. That is what a hierarchy is. You having the right to initiate force against me. That's what hierarchy means. Wielding force over others. If you cannot wield force over me then you do not have power over me and there is not a hierarchy. If the owner of the company can not force their employees to do things they do not own the company. These are the concepts of ownership and hierarchy. And when you extend that to a societal level, what you find is that the owning class, the group of people who own the companies, can en-masse force conditions on the workers, simply by occupying space, simply by already owning the established industry, and land, and housing, and food production, and all of the other things we need to live, and simply by individually following the best business practices to enrich themselves. And suddenly you have arrived at the basic marxist concept of bourgeoisie and proletariat, that the owners of things exert power over the workers in things, and that this must be backed up by the threat of force, by police and armies to make the concept of ownership mean something, because if you didn't have those forces then the workers would not listen to the owners when they say that the workers must pay to continue living in their homes, to continue to eat, and that they must accept the wages decided by the owners to continue coming to work rather than deciding what to do with the products of their labour themselves. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Feb 6, 2021 |
# ? Feb 6, 2021 05:08 |
|
JustJeff88 posted:I took the GRE and scored top 1% in verbal and top 2% in writing (quantitative was another story). With no humour whatsoever, I wanted to feel proud of myself but I mostly realised that the exam was utterly meaningless. Funny thing that is somewhat related to all this discussion: The computer science GRE subject test is rightfully considered garbage by most experts in the field. But lower tier schools still use it and have pissing contests over it and reject candidates for having too low scores. But, for the top tier schools, taking and submitting the score can only hurt your application Weird a test that measures nothing being used to separate people's worth. But I guess this aside has nothing to do with IQ tests Billy Gnosis fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Feb 6, 2021 |
# ? Feb 6, 2021 05:09 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 18:48 |
|
The reason IQ and race goes hand in hand because they’re both concepts created to create arbitrary hierarchies that fundamentally built upon feelings and assumptions about people that have mixed evidence it describes anything fundamental in the case of IQ and absolutely none in the case of race, and they’re always used together. Why are you so obsessed with intelligence anyway? Even ignoring all the history with IQ tests existing for the purpose of reproducing existing biases, it has little to do with productivity or ability. Why is it that Mensa can’t figure out how not to store passwords in plaintext in tyoul 2020? Butter Activities fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Feb 6, 2021 |
# ? Feb 6, 2021 05:15 |