Has William posted his sat (or act) score yet?

Just wanted to point out Wil calling someone a liar is not proof of anything, he's never caught me in a lie for example. As far as scumbags go, I don't support punching children in the head which seems pretty scummy to me...

I've already given my opinion, and in such great detail that [UNDRAFTED] sent me a PM telling me I was engaged in too much lawyering. So, you're welcome to nominate me as an arbiter if you wish, but you should probably already know the outcome in that case, so you guys could probably cut out the middle-man, as my hourly is really quite unconscionable.

Aofrantic was proven in multiple instances to lie, in a bet that he couldn't be proven he ever lied. Again, he came up with this silliness, got smacked, and disappeared.

Defending him at this point is pretty laughable.

This...

does not imply this...

hence...

As I understand it, there are correlations between IQ and "success" measured in various ways (income, education level, job performance, ...), but the causality is very tangled, by which I mean that there is also some reason to believe that IQ test results and success measured in those terms are not really independent measures, but are both correlated to yet other actual independent variables, like socio-economic status. This seems like a pretty decent overview of some of the challenges.

That said, all else being equal of course one would prefer to be more intelligent than less intelligent, and even accepting IQ as an imperfect measure you'd rather have a higher IQ than a lower IQ. When I said I think intelligence is overrated I meant in terms of the ability to contribute to a political discussion, i.e in the context of this thread or forum. Aurelex and TiltedDonkey both made a point that I think is fair: raw intelligence might be overrated past a certain threshold, but still obviously important. All the skills I mentioned are going to be moot for someone whose IQ is 70. But I guess I would amend my statement to say something like "Once your iQ >= 115, I think hard work and effort at learning the skills I mentioned before trump raw differences in IQ", at least in the context of politics.

We disagree here quite a bit obviously. There are different ways to measure intelligence. One is apparently just raw ability to power through logical problems. Another is facts and education. People are naturally advantaged by experience and education. I am not talking about 5 year olds and I would argue that intelligent 15 year olds exist that have gone through bad home lives. Experiences do matter but some people are naturally intelligent. I'm unsure how that happens fully but I'd bet genetics has something to do with it.

IQ is a very racialized and politicized topic and one of the few topics I don't want to explore very much. I treat it like the topic of abortion.


What's the issue with the above statement?
It's obvious all religious people are not stupid. The majority of 2+2 politics posters are leftist weirdos. Many of them are intelligent, even though they believe in loltastic things. They are simply agreeing with data that supports their positions. It's natural for many people to do that. Is it intellectually honest? I think so. Are they stupid? I wouldn't say so.

Unless we are talking about people like samsonh, who is actually a stupid human being.

I am not sure what asking someone to post their SAT score and taking their word for it accomplishes.

I also doubt there will be a consensus on an arbiter unless both parties are willing to take on some risk in that they truly do not know the opinion of said arbiter.

well, now theres a bunch of experts who are asserting the eq (emotional quotient/intelligence) is the one that matters and not iq.

so ya, you can look that up. I guess it does make a lot of sense. and I would imagine the better eq, the happier a person is whereas you can be a very flawed and unhappy person with a high iq.

Well there's the rub. Humans are complex creatures and of course no single metric will tell the full story. People who are pretty dim can become wildly successful, look at professional athletes or entertainers. That doesn't meant that IQ isn't a requirement in certain disciplines. You simply can't have low IQ and be a neurosurgeon. Now, whether a person with 130 IQ will beat out a person with 140 IQ to be that neurosurgeon can touch on many different variables, but in no way will a person of 95 IQ become a neurosurgeon, regardless of how terrible someone else may perform.

I don't agree with this at all. I look at some people who are, shall we say, not so smart, who are extremely happy and content with their lives while being a bus driver or bartender. I envy them sometimes. I could even make an argument that very highly intelligent people may be susceptible to depression or anxiety.

That may sound very condescending but I say that as someone who doesn't consider themselves overly intelligent. I believe I'm smarter than the average person, by a large margin, actually, but in the world of seriously smart people I'd be nothing.
I don't see any problem with this except for some seriously difficult areas. I think there are certain disciplines that simply require the highest levels of intelligence that 115 IQs simply don't make the cut. I could obviously be wrong.

You are overlooking the phrase "all else being equal", which is doing some work in my sentence.

I see no reason why me using the same thought progression you and others morons use is objectionable in only one way. You do the above all the time, yet when I do it I'm incorrect?

In fact, I'd say that's exactly your position. But please, explain how it's not. We'd all love to hear.

Ahh yes, fair point.

There are also studies that say people with high EQs are lying sociopaths.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this. My point is that in order for an intelligent person to overcome a bad start (i.e. low socioeconomic status, abusive parents, whatever) they need to make intelligent choices in childhood. This is a much higher bar to clear than making intelligent choices in adulthood, and in many cases even those who would otherwise grow up to be quite intelligent are going to have their growth stunted because they lack the intelligence in childhood to overcome those obstacles.

For example, I have quite developed mathematical and computer programming skills. I'm very confident that if I were stripped of all my money and thrown out on the street today, I could use my intelligence and skills to regain my footing and become successful. However, if I were thrown out on the street as 14 year old, it becomes much less likely I would ever have developed those skills in the first place, and I would be fighting a much more uphill battle to become successful, even with the same raw intelligence.

I have no issue with it; it is what I am attempting to explain.


I mean most of the people here don't believe in things that are loltastic on their face, even though I often disagree with what people post. Religion is much more loltastic.

EDIT: Maybe they do. Provide a couple of examples and I'll see if I agree they are loltastic.

I am undefeated lifetime in Cranium and, having played it with Americans while staying there, I awarded myself the World Cup.

I also awarded myself a world title in flipping beer mats after beating a German and a Swede with my total of 24.

My only weakness is Connect 4.

Cranium is a team game.

Sounds like scientific mumbo jumbo to me. I'm sure people can make some sort of argument for it and sound very convincing but to me it sounds like nonsense.

The ability to understand other people's emotions, while evidently important in the development of people with autism or Asperger's, is mostly a skill that people can develop. Some people are naturally better at it than others but I wouldn't consider it a measure of intelligence.

You don't know what my (or most lefties) "position" is because you rarely bother to read peoples posts. Far easier to skim the first sentence and then continue on your own rant than to try to understand the points being made.

Your last exchange with well named is a good example.


Re. the exchange with me where you stupidly or deviously misrepresented my position as...

No one here believes this nonsense, which is why it's a giant strawman.

People on the left generally believe in competition and a mixed market. I don't know anyone in the forum, not even tom or GBV (who's very much like a hard left version of you, ie a simplistic fool), whose views match what you posted.

If this is what you understand by the term "political left" then you've obviously never read any political material, so I don't even know why you're posting in a politics forum.

Talking about politics with someone as woefully ignorant as you is usually just embarrassing.

Lol. Who in their right minds actually believes this?

Hahahaha. Oh man this is truly dumb.

I'm almost certain you would consider me a "person on the left" and I definitely believe in competition.

I dont believe this at all, and I don't see how you could defend this argument, in light of so many people who escape that environment. People are not destined to live crappy lives because they have crappy parents. If you want to argue they have emotional baggage, I can maybe get on board with that, but to equate it to bettering their situation I do not agree at all.
We are talking about two different things. You are talking about a situation where a 14 year old has to find a way to take care of themselves, which is incredibly hard to overcome. A clever 14 year old has a much better chance to succeed than a dumb one. You are saying you consider yourself intelligent, do you not think you could have pursued education on your own after stabilizing your life situation if thrown out at 14? Would being a naturally smart kid not have helped you after fixing that problem?

Obviously not having shelter or food is a huge obstacle, but in no way does it end everything right then and there. I've known borderline brilliant people who've gone through exactly what you just described and they turned out surprisingly well. Although they did have shelter provided by other family members.

Oh god wil you're so clueless. Go to bed and read a website on basic political theory for imbeciles, if it's not too advanced for you.

Really? What is your position on affirmative action and school vouchers?

It seems you are the one who is clueless.