Stop Intelligence-Based Discrimination

Proof please.

You want people to defend their opinions, defend yours.

Because subjective criterion is a means of gauging like anything else.

You didn't think your cunning little argument through, did you?

 

It's not even being played (well, sadly it is in some cases)

the problem is, that even with the satirical nature of this, he hasn't lowered the dialogue here in politics one iota.

 

Lmao that was the best post I've ever seen in my life.

 

C

A tip – read the post and try and understand it before replying

Too often the kind of person who doesn’t think things through but instead just tries to score a point fall flat on their face.

Oh dear, now how can I put this in simpler terms you might understand?

THAT WAS MY POINT

If someone is using subjective criteria to gauge another’s supposed ‘intelligence’ it isn’t an impartial or accurate test only a subjective viewpoint. A person is very likely to be making the judgement based on inner prejudices.

That is why so often people claim something or someone is intelligent when it is something or someone they agree with while claiming that things and people that they don’t agree with are unintelligent.

They make judgements on other people’s educational ability or ‘intellectual’ ability not based on any real knowledge of that person educational attainment or actual ability but purely on the fact that they criticise or don’t have the same views as their own.

But I’ve pointed out a number of times this seems ‘stupid’ to me, I’ve met people that don’t seem ‘unintelligent’ to me that hold views I consider stupid. There are a number of hipforum members I disagree with totally but still don’t consider them ‘unintelligent’.

Anyway as I’ve said I’m unsure as to what ‘intelligence’ is anyway and so don’t see that it can be accurately and definitively gauged.

*

 

What a bitch-fest this has turned into...

 

it was a bitch fest from post 1.

I'm just here to throw popcorn and giggle at the results of this joke that is being taken FAR too seriously.

 

Yeah, good point

 

LOL well I’m having fun, but even then there is a serious side.

Let’s take another contribution to the thread

I’ve met this kind of viewpoint before for example - one person said they’re never be an Olympic sprinter and that was just that.

But what if Johnny plays American Football with his fellow overweight friends is there no merit in that because it isn’t the NFL?

So what if you’re never going to be an Olympic sprinter does that mean you can’t run if you want to?

The philosophy seems to be that there is some type predestination in potential, Johnny with his small frame and heavy build will never be a NFL star so he shouldn’t even like American football. If you haven’t got a runners body then don’t bother to run.

They then extend that view to peoples ‘intelligence’.

That just as it is obvious that overweight 5’2 johnny isn’t good material for the NFL it is also obvious whose brains are inferior, I mean you just have to look at someone don’t you…its obvious…isn’t it?

Well no it isn’t.

Someone might not have the body for being an NFL level quarterback or Olympic sprinter but is it as obvious from looking at someone to gauge there ‘intellectual’ abilities?

It is obvious from just looking at Stephen Hawking that he was never going to be a Dan Marino or Michael Johnson, but is it obvious from just looking at him how intelligent he is?

(Remember that many times in the past physical deficiencies were associated with mental deficiencies)

*

Now the argument is that people should be chosen for positions that involve ‘intelligence’ on intellectual merit, just as people should be ranked in sport by their physical merit.

So how?

The normal way is through testing, exams, quizzes etc. but that really just tests knowledge and the problem is that has a lot more to do with a persons advantage rather than their supposed ‘intelligence’.

People from higher socio-economic classes usually have the advantage because they’re usually well educated and educated parents can help out their children a lot more easily than uneducated parents and those with the ability to purchase educational material, guidance, tutors etc also can pass on an advantage.

So most of such testing only actually measures the level of a person’s advantage not ‘intelligence’

Using such tests as a marker basically rewards certain socio-economic groups and helps perpetuate that group’s advantage.

*

The thing is that some people take this socio-economic advantage as a sign of ‘intellectual’ superiority or that some groups are ‘naturally’ better than others.

*

So I’ll ask again – how do people here gauge who’s ‘intelligent’ (or not)?

 

You're missing the point.
Johnny will never play NFL because he was born with a pre-determined height. His weight is his own fault and he deserves no sympathy for it. But regardless of how hard he works to improve his physique he will never gain the height needed to play NFL.

People are pretty easy to judge when it comes to intelligence because 9 times out of 10 the intelligent ones are the ones who succeed (call it ambition or two faced-ness, but both of those are forms of intelligence). Is the kid who chooses to sit in and play xbox rather than studying before an important test intelligent? Possibly, but probably not.

The point is Johnny deserves some sympathy, because he did not chose to be small (but he DID chose to be fat). The kid sitting on his ass playing xbox is choosing not to study, he is chosing not to improve his intellect. So, put simply... fuck him.

 

Ambition has nothing to do with intelligence, many intelligent people have no concern with making large amounts of money. In fact a good deal of successful people are "successful" because mommy and daddy want them to be, they memorize what they need to to pass test and get their degree then go off and make mad money. Since the late 80's the main reason people listing as going to college as switched from having an education to having more earning potential.

 

Like I said, I'm here for the popcorn and giggles, I'm playing loki, throwing fire on flames that shouldn't even be here.

that being said.

I'm a working class kid, I have a natural grasp of compressible fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, music, linguistics, large systems I just have a....

Lets say "Dischordant" number of gifts (enough that it seems unfair, and out of harmony with the natural order of things, it's a synesthetic metaphor, it works for me)

I definitely have some kind of natural advantage.

With that natural advantage I also have natural pitfalls, I "suffer" from asperger's syndrome, epilepsy, and synesthesia.

Asperger's is just a terrible inconvenience, I really thought everyone thought and functioned exactly as I did when I was younger, until eventually when I was diagnosed, lightbulb, hey, I actually am doing something totally different, because I don't have the same box of equipment to arrive at the same place, in the long run I actually think it's going to make me stronger, so I take issue with it being "suffer" but some people REALLY do suffer from it, but, what can you do? it's a continuum, I actually have "a severe case" (I'm VERY symptomatic, the symptoms are very severe) but that has turned into a benefit for me.

The epilepsy just sucks. that is a suffer.

and synesthesia, if anyone ever says it's a gift, they don't really understand how TERRIBLY irritating it is. it's not so much suffering as, it makes communication even harder.





So, I Definitely had some horsepower advantages, in the architecture of my brain, because I was raised by a retarded, crippled old man. I had shit nutrition, went to a terrible school, was in an environment with almost no nurturing, and I can honestly say that these factors had an effect.

There is a gifted program in this school district, I was the only kid in it from a school that wouldn't be described "middle class"

Only kid in it with a retarded parent, etc. etc.


How do we tell who is intelligent?

We don't.

We don't have to.

it doesn't fucking matter.

I have a genius I.Q. I was told when I was six that it meant that I WAS a genius, it didn't, it meant I had more potential to become one through a specific route than someone without the raw horsepower I possess.

You can be a musical genius and have much less visual spatial capacity than I do, and REALLY be a genius.

You can be a Mathematic genius and have the language skills of a twelve year old (I've met a couple of those, FASCINATING people)

And honestly? there should be some merit based discrimination, But it should not be through determinations made by people

it should not be through tests, and idiotic little ineffectual mechanisms

it should be through MERIT

it should be through actual, on the ground, doing it, it should be "okay, you're a math genius, play your soul to us, do your math, show your art, we will appreciate it"


This pointless dickwaving shit is just that, pointless.



Frankly I am probably smarter than most of the people here, I used to care. I also used to be 16, and stupid, and when I did care, I was wrong. the irony there is of course quite exquisite, which also doesn't matter.

Now all I want to do is raise the level of the debate to something meaningful so that this politics forum can actually be educational and instantly drum out ridiculous retarded threads like this instead of actually giving them the credence of discussion

it's a joke.

Everything is a joke right now.
because it doesn't matter.

This competition is just trying to validate ourselves, trying to compare ourselves against others to put our insecurities at bay for one more moment, so we can be happy.

it will never work.

 

Gedio

The ones who succeed?

What is success?

As I’ve said Einstein was a patenting clerk who was passed over for promotion several times.

So he was unsuccessful and therefore ‘unintelligent’ then he publishes some great theorems and is successful and becomes ‘intelligent’.

Van Gogh wasn’t successful in his lifetime (I think he only sold one painting) but now he is trumpeted as ‘a genius’.

Richard Fudd was lauded as a giant of success, meriting bonuses of 20 million dollars plus and then he drove Lehman Brothers into the ground, causing the world history’s biggest bankruptcy. He was in effect ‘intelligent’ until he was shown not to be ‘intelligent’. (Certainly the people that looked at Lehman’s books through the strategy the company was following was dumb).

Don’t you see there is a certain arbitrariness about using ‘success’ as a way of gauging ‘intelligence’.

You’d first have to quantify and qualify what you deem success?

I now several women who have never had jobs or only part time ones who have never made large amounts of money, yet they are articulate, sharp, knowledgeable and funny. By one standard of success they haven’t had any by another they have ‘succeeded’ in bringing up wonderful children.

*

Well by your criteria they’re only unintelligent if they don’t succeed.

If they ace the test it doesn’t matter if they were playing xbox or not.

Again it is the Einstein example again – you are making a judgement – the kid playing xbox before an important test is probably unintelligent – oh he passes the test proving he is intelligent.

In this example you’re also associating the passing of tests with ‘intelligence’ but as I’ve said - is that a true gauge of ‘intellectual’ ability or just a product of socio-economic advantage?

*

 

*

Well Mad we don’t always agree but on this we seem to be in agreement

 

Dave

Sorry but you still don’t seem to understand.

It’s not that people shouldn’t try and gauge ‘intelligence’ (because “it doesn't fucking matter”) the point is that a lot of people do try - and that comes out of and can bring people into a certain political philosophy.

Social Darwinist thinking claims that some people are worthy (intelligent) and therefore meriting of rewards while others are unworthy (unintelligent) and shouldn’t be rewarded. And they gauged these positions in society on social and material success, a sliding scale from rich down to poor.

That people are in their socio-economic position because they deserve (merit) being there.

It is a philosophy that supports social programme cuts aimed at the poor while giving tax cuts to the rich.

It is a philosophy that supports huge bonuses going to CEO while blocking any raise in the minimum wage.

*

Who warrants the merit?

You seem to be implying that it is through ‘success’ in “doing it”.

But how do they ‘do it’, there are exceptions but for most things in life some type of ‘capital’ is needed to get into any game, either financial or academic, either you have the money or the formal qualifications.

And then you come up against what I said before - People from higher socio-economic classes usually have the advantage because they’re usually well educated and educated parents can help out their children a lot more easily than uneducated parents and those with the ability to purchase educational material, guidance, tutors etc also can pass on an advantage.

In a money based system those with money usually have the advantages.

Without changing that you’d only end up rewarding certain socio-economic groups rather than taping into the ‘merits’ of the population at large.

*

Then please start, because in my opinion I haven’t seen that much evidence of you doing it so far.

*

 

To sum up no-body seem able to come up with way of gauging ‘intelligence’ the question I’ve always wondered here is why are they trying?

And to me at the back of it seems to be a worrying eugenic like social Darwinist view of the world.

That somehow unnatural socio-economic factors can be used to categorise the human stock into the ‘naturally’ worthy and unworthy.

Where arbitrary, erratic and in the end subjective social success is seen as some measure of genetic superiority.

 

To the person who said ambition is not a form of intelligence, perhaps I worded my statement incorrectly. The ambition as a desire may not reflect intelligence but the ability to make this ambition come to fruition is definatley a form of intelligence.

Einstein was intelligent? Lol, sure... Because quantum theory isn't blatantly a load of shit. Parrallell universes? Give me a fucking break.

The kid who realizes how valuable these socio-economic advantages are at making your life significantly easier I class as intelligent. The kid who plays xbox and never studies will in all probability not pass the test. Just the way things work.

The challenge is to make your life sustainably hedonistic, to do this you DO need a decent job. Not neccassarily a lot of money, but a decent amount. The intelligent among us realize this.

Refusing to be part of the system and "not work for the machine" is an admirable quality, but where does it get you in the long run? The machine carries on, society doesn't care and it leaves you, simply, poor. Or you can take what you can from it. It doesn't even take an intelligent majn to realize which is better.

 

Good god we agree on something? Damn, maybe now the OP realizes how asinine his post was.

Also wow, I feel like a moron now for I just noticed a massive linguistic mistake in that quote from me in a thread about intelligence. But shhhh, the OP doesn't need to know that

 

Alright so Einstein isn't intelligent but the person who wants to have an awesome job with a tie is because they'll make mad money and "fit in" with society. Please leave this thread, right now, do it. Why are you so concerned with fitting in with society, what went wrong in your life that you can't be your own person. Go read some Jung.

 

There has been NO evidence of you ever doing it.

Simply demonstrating a penchant for preaching.

1. Social darwinism is based in insecurity, you'll find it's proponents are all people who are considered fit by it's tenets. if it were reasonable, that wouldn't be strictly true, We're talking about the wrong problem, and I'm being flippant as hell, because this problem doesn't matter.

2. Academic capital is a joke. 80% of the degrees out there today act as a means to enforce racism and social stratification. Those need to go. You should realize that, it seems like an easy conclusion to arrive at "hm, I meet all of those job qualifications, oh, but wait, it requires this inane degree that's made up of shit easy classes, but they still require a bachelours of business... god damn, can't get that job that pays twice what my job pays, even though it's easier, requires less intellectual agility, and keeps me in an office all day"

it's racist, it's classist, and it's terribly obvious.

3. Monetary capital has become a joke, most of the wealth of many of the wealthy in this country is made up of imaginary money, leveraged this, and holdings that, one could easily argue that it's all imaginary (except for the actual greenbacks) but that would be a needlessly complicated argument for our purposes (not enough benefit for it's cost, based on the length of your double posted diatribes you don't care about that, but I am pointing out that some of us do care about the cost of specious arguments.)

4. The thing about any method I'd suggest (as I didn't actually suggest one, you see, you just assumed I did) is that it would involve actually working, and the person who is doing work owning the product of his work, and the profit from it, because there is a value to artisanship.

There is a value to labour and there is a value to creativity.

There is also a value to leadership, and there is a value to wise, and productive management, but there is no value in someone following policies and procedures, doing exactly what a book tells them to, and pretending that they are being a leader.

the amount of money freed up for workers should most management be replaced by computers is staggering, mostly because middle managers don't do anything anyway.

this clears the way for promotion based on merit, instead of promotion based on ones ability to game the system, as, right now, most companies would be stupid to promote based on merit. Why promote your best engineer into a management position, where his engineering will be made a second priority, when you can promote someone less skilled as an engineer, who is better at following orders, more of a sycophantic whore. Who will not only try harder for the stock holders, because they actually think that matters in their little insular world. BUT, they will follow orders without question.


Without those positions, that salary, that's being wasted on really, pretty worthless people, can go to the people who are actually doing the work. And improve work product, it can improve scientific advancement, and remove the stigma of actually working



As to rewarding higher socio-economic classes, it rewards people who actually work, with proper legislation, and adequate regulation.

The hardest working people in the world are some of the poorest.

That is a problem.

when one is punished for actually being the best at something? that is wrong. It hasn't always been that way, and it doesn't have to stay that way.

 

Jung is a pile of wank.

I am my own person. Fitting in in a place of work makes life significantly easier. Denying this is merely foolish, not nonconformist.

Why are you so concerned about my post?

And no, I will NOT leave. Who the fuck are you to tell me to? That's the beauty of a discussion forum. Don't like my opinion? Tough shit, go fuck yourself. I'm not going to remove it because it upset some pissy uber-liberal.