Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

IQ

Re: IQ
November 24, 2007, 11:43:29 PM
So much assertiveness from my "metal comrades".
I'm delighted to read so much arrogance.
When some of you implied the fact that some people are stupid, did you really think about it before typing it?
Lets see: I've been there, I've been working in jobs in which many of you haven't been and probably will never be. I suppose if you would 'd called me stupid for hating my job at that time and wanting to climb up.
Of course, at that time I would've given you that impression. I think what we got here is mere elitism since many of you to me are the "stupid" ones. Fancy words don't make you much more intelligent. Higher IQ nowadays merely means you can remember what books say. Can you apply all that theory? Can you apply all that wisdom? and if so, for how long will you? One year? Two years? Until you find a girlfriend? Until you get married? Until you have childrens? For how long will you pertain to the "higher" group?
You would be surprised by how much you could learn from those "stupid" people. I'm sure some of them could survive longer than you. You wanna be "superior"? ... Then books wont be the sole solution, you'll need to develop every single quality you got. you'll have to be self sufficient, coordinated, organized, and much more. Tell me, are you (some of you) all that? if so, then you can be elitist. If not, then you simply remind me of those annoying university students that come across my path everyday. They firmly believe being the future, and the center of the world as well.


Re: IQ
November 25, 2007, 12:55:05 AM
Quote
Hmm so nice and fun to see certain people consider themselves as special.


This is an ad hominem.

Quote
Iq does not equal aspiring in any meaningful way.


This is patently false.

Quote
This guy I know, with a mensa certified iq of 150+, he is a semi-alcoholic bartender who hasn't done jack shit since high school.


This is another fallacy of division.

Quote
The general idea of "social reform" over here is just as Utopian as communism which many people here strongly advocate against.


This is a strawman argument.

Quote
So you think intelligent people leading as a waste of talent?


This is another strawman.

Re: IQ
November 25, 2007, 02:33:04 AM
Quote
So much assertiveness from my "metal comrades".
I'm delighted to read so much arrogance.
When some of you implied the fact that some people are stupid, did you really think about it before typing it?
Lets see: I've been there, I've been working in jobs in which many of you haven't been and probably will never be. I suppose if you would 'd called me stupid for hating my job at that time and wanting to climb up.
Of course, at that time I would've given you that impression. I think what we got here is mere elitism since many of you to me are the "stupid" ones. Fancy words don't make you much more intelligent. Higher IQ nowadays merely means you can remember what books say. Can you apply all that theory? Can you apply all that wisdom? and if so, for how long will you? One year? Two years? Until you find a girlfriend? Until you get married? Until you have childrens? For how long will you pertain to the "higher" group?
You would be surprised by how much you could learn from those "stupid" people. I'm sure some of them could survive longer than you. You wanna be "superior"? ... Then books wont be the sole solution, you'll need to develop every single quality you got. you'll have to be self sufficient, coordinated, organized, and much more. Tell me, are you (some of you) all that? if so, then you can be elitist. If not, then you simply remind me of those annoying university students that come across my path everyday. They firmly believe being the future, and the center of the world as well.



This is why I cannot comprehend Born for Banning's idea of complete eradication of "stupid" people. A less intelligent person can act towards the same goal as a far more intelligent person. And the aims of many "stupid" people can be far more practical and "noble" then that of far more educated men.

Europe's bloody "exploration" of the world was done so under the guess that we are smarter then those we conquer, thus they benefit from out better judgment even if they don't understand it. This idea was also used in slavery in America. We give the black man a place to sleep and food, hes to stupid to be happy and healthy without us.

We often make assumptions on this board about many things because it is assumption to be true by some many here. Its easy to say that smart people should control government and the idiotic should have little power in themselves and i do agree with this, But it is when we actually start to make some sort of plan or present a plan of our own that we must elaborate on. Who is stupid, what characteristics befall one who is stupid (and it would be best to avoid the tautology here) and why these are unfavorable. All these things need to be explained when someone suggests to cull the population starting at the bottom.

Thats why assumptions can be dangerous, they carry all the weight of truth without every being tested for is truthfulness. Perhaps its time to actually begin asking what is stupidity simply because this thread has gone far enough and laid too many theories on an assumed truth (and this truth may only be for the individual rather then the collective making the idea even more worrying).

Quote
This is another strawman.


Rather then it being a strawman argument it is a Reductio ad absurdum. He stated that it is a waste of talent for an intelligent man to manage those who less intelligent then he is and cater to there needs. But the first part of what he said can be ignored.

What he stated would be true except for the fact  that most menial tasks exist in any sophisticated society. Greece, Rome Egypt, china and japan all had slaves and they complete the menial tasks. And when there are not slaves there is a cheap work force. So contrary to what he said it is the more elegant civilizations that need these vast idiotic hordes to do their work.

So since our society does not have all these menial task because of its design (although many task today exist solely because of that design) he is simply saying that that a leader is wasting their talent to make the society that allows those lower class citizens which are important to exist.


Re: IQ
November 25, 2007, 03:35:16 AM
Quote
Its easy to say that smart people should control government and the idiotic should have little power in themselves and i do agree with this, But it is when we actually start to make some sort of plan or present a plan of our own that we must elaborate on.


We have governments in order to manage the idiots. Governments serve no other need.

Quote
Who is stupid, what characteristics befall one who is stupid (and it would be best to avoid the tautology here) and why these are unfavorable. All these things need to be explained when someone suggests to cull the population starting at the bottom.


This is similar to the trouble with having a democracy with everyone voting, except we're instead discussing everyone integrated into the same civilization, or inhabiting the same planet for that matter.

Re: IQ
November 25, 2007, 03:56:20 AM
Quote
We have governments in order to manage the idiots. Governments serve no other need.


I'm sure the roman senate contributed more to the world then just the managing of the masses. But managing the idiots if used well creates great effects. Roads are built and hospitals made, armies forged, they provide the base for more intelligent men to make real culture from. It is simply our society now that uses that kind of labor for far more useless things like building the newest Macdonald's.  

Re: IQ
November 25, 2007, 04:03:06 AM
The supporting base for the bright people to make humanity a worthwhile species can be made less cumbersome by improving the design.

Re: IQ
November 25, 2007, 04:15:12 AM
True. But that also means that medial tasks do need to be done. Thats why the ancient Greeks run better then we do today, they managed there serfs much more efficiently.

So can we conclude that as a society grows more complex there need to be more men to clean the new cogs in the machine and only primitive societies are exempt from such chores? But better systems allowing the cogs to run smoother thus allow for less maintenance or more constructive maintenance.

Does this sound correct to you?

Re: IQ
November 25, 2007, 04:22:38 AM
I'm unclear what our vastly more complex modern society has done to make humanity a more worthwhile species than what the Greeks produced. I'm also noting the sensible polis communities they had at one point, which to my knowledge did not need to rely on a servant class in order to prosper.

Re: IQ
November 25, 2007, 04:51:45 AM
Our society has done little for the world but that does not mean it is not complex.

STS

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 12:50:05 AM
Quote
I'm unclear what our vastly more complex modern society has done to make humanity a more worthwhile species than what the Greeks produced. I'm also noting the sensible polis communities they had at one point, which to my knowledge did not need to rely on a servant class in order to prosper.


As strange an aberration as it is, what results from this mess could be very worthwhile if the right people emerge at the top.

The Greek state wasn’t stupid 2000 + years ago; reimplementing it now would be. We don’t want to regress into a civilization that would have worked centuries ago because that wouldn’t help to address what we need to do now and what is required of us in the future; what we can do is combine the very best ideas from any past & present source and apply them in a way that makes sense and works.

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 01:05:34 AM
Quote
I'm unclear what our vastly more complex modern society has done to make humanity a more worthwhile species than what the Greeks produced. I'm also noting the sensible polis communities they had at one point, which to my knowledge did not need to rely on a servant class in order to prosper.




Sparta? Helots? :)

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 01:05:35 AM
When someone tells me their IQ is X on the internet, and that's all they tell me, the greater X is the more skeptical I am.

When you take a real IQ test, like the WAIS III, which must be administered by someone who is qualified to do so, they will always give you a percentile rank, and tell you what was used to normalize it.

So really, like someone else said, 145 on the Stanford-Binet might be like 134 on the WAIS III, and this is why percentile rank is useful, because it tells you more exactly where you stand. That's not all though, if you take the WAIS III in Canada, and score say 136, that might be scored as 140 or so in the USA.

So it would be sort of bullshit if someone took the Stanford-Binet in the USA, scored 140, and thinks "omg I'm like way smarter than this Canadian guy who scored 129 on the WAIS III". Just doesn't work that way  :)  

(Canada vs. USA is not the point)

shadowmystic

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 05:06:06 AM
How about population rarity rank, when I was 8 I scored 161 on the Slossen something intelligence test which equates to 1 in 10000.  Unfortunately a two year drug binge may have brought that down alot, anything I've done on the net recently has given me 140-150, but they seem untrustworthy anyway.  As soon as I see general knowledge questions I lose respect for the test.

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 05:22:44 AM
As zodiac said IQs vary between different IQ standards but referring to moses if you are mostly scoring such high results it could possibly be indicating something. I suggest organize an official and monitored IQ test. One way to do this is to try and enterer Mensa because they can set up tests to qualify rather then just sending in test results already received.

On the topic of ancient Greece, do the oligarchies in Greece employ more slave/forced labor then the republics?  

Re: IQ
November 26, 2007, 07:15:24 AM
Quote
I'm unclear what our vastly more complex modern society has done to make humanity a more worthwhile species than what the Greeks produced. I'm also noting the sensible polis communities they had at one point, which to my knowledge did not need to rely on a servant class in order to prosper.


The servile population of many Greek polis states (especially the larger and more prosperous ones - Athens, Thebes, Syracuse etc.) often approached 50% of the total population - in Sparta, the Messanian helots outnumbered the Spartiates by something on the order of 25-1.

The same is true of almost all the great societies of antiquity.  From Middle Republican times on, the calling card of absolute poverty was the inability to purchase even a single slave: the vast majority, even of the capite censi owned one or more slaves.