David Thompson
Subscribe

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

« Burning Question | Main | Today’s Word Is Symbolism »

April 17, 2018

Comments

Andy

Can't read the Doug Murray piece without registering.

David

Can’t read the Doug Murray piece without registering.

Bugger, forgot. That said, I think it’s worth signing up for UnHerd. It takes 30 seconds, is free, and you don’t get bombarded with unwanted emails.

David
It would appear that nation-wide attention to the blatant and quite public racism by the event’s organisers caused enough embarrassment that the [“people of colour only”] party was postponed. Yet, this is just another entry in a long string of incidents where students claim they are “unsafe.” Please try to imagine a world in which parents fork out over $55,000 per year to send their precious princess to a campus where safety is a daily concern. Yes, me neither.

Darleen Click on transparent but fashionable lies.

Tim Newman

Due to the scarcity of men, the hurdles to a professional career are distinctly lower than they are for most women.

I have a colleague who is in an amateur choir. They are quite good, but absolutely crying out for men of *any* ability because they don't have a single one, and the women can't sing the lower tones.

Tim Newman

So how many people have an IQ of 83 or less? Ten percent of us.

I wonder if he's referring to humankind, or a particular country. I have an idea that in localised spots, it'll be a lot higher than 10%. Labour Party conferences, for example.

R. Sherman

What's never pointed out about the privilege industry is that it is predicated on the idea that all good fortune/blessings/luck/etc. is morally neutral, i.e. random and unearned. Yet, somehow the recipients are required to feel guilt (an emotion based solely upon morality) because of same.

Karl

I don't often disagree with Jordan Peterson, but here's clearly wrong here. What that implies is that in the U.S armed forces there isn’t anything for 10% of the population to do. Fortunately a complex society like ours offers a vast range of potentially lucrative and rewarding occupations not available to people within the armed forces. I don't doubt that many of these are accessible to people with an IQ less than 83.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

Can't read the Doug Murray piece without registering.

Andy - you can register with a pseudonym and a mailinator.com e-mail address (e.g., notme @ mailinator.com). It is worth RTWT as the whippersnappers say.

David

I have an idea that in localised spots, it’ll be a lot higher than 10%.

Even Peterson, who’s generally quite fearless, is careful to dodge that bullet.

Tim Newman

Even Peterson, who’s generally quite fearless, is careful to dodge that bullet.

Indeed. When I lived in, erm, other parts one of the things which struck me rather forcefully is how utterly, mind-bogglingly useless so many people were at completing simple, everyday tasks or following simple, 3-step instructions. I don't know whether it's intelligence, culture, or what...but by damned, getting shit done was hard.

pst314

if you had an IQ of 83 or less, there wasn’t anything that you could be trained to do in the military that wasn’t positively counterproductive

It is an article of faith on the left that education and training can compensate for a low IQ. Even supposedly intelligent professors of psychology believe that.

Tim Newman

I remember a guy, around 30 years old, who was a procurement clerk, for want of a better word. White collar, educated, worked in an office of a major international company. He had about 2 or 3 purchase orders to process per week, and by that I mean he had to receive the request from an engineer, assign a number, and pass it onto the procurement department. His method of assigning a number to each PO was to think of one, then write it on a scrap of paper. It wasn't written in a column, and the numbers weren't in sequential order, they were just doodled on a piece of A4 he had lying around. When assigning a new number, he'd look at the paper to ensure he'd not used it before. Then he lost the piece of paper. So he just started a new one, thinking up a number then putting it on the PO. But he started re-using the numbers, and we ended up with several POs floating through the system all with the same number. This guy lacked the brains to create even a simple, two or three column ledger. He was typical for the position.

Contrast this with Russia. I went to a massive steel mill and found all the welding QA/QC was done by hand, with a burly grandmother covered in grease checking each weld in person and writing down all the details. She had an enormous ledger and shelves behind her with hundreds of these ledgers on, and each entry written perfectly, the records going back years. We audited them, and didn't find anything to concern us. I'd imagine this woman had little more than a high-school education, if that. She'd have been a genius in the other place.

David

It is an article of faith on the left that education and training can compensate for a low IQ

Many leftist educators do seem to imagine that an IQ is something you can just pour into a head, any head, with sufficient education. Variations of this claim can get quite bizarre and unmoored from reality. But I suppose it’s another way for leftist educators to flatter themselves and overestimate their own importance – by in effect assuming credit for someone else’s ability.

JSquare

@Karl

I don't often disagree with Jordan Peterson, but here's clearly wrong here. What that implies is that in the U.S armed forces there isn’t anything for 10% of the population to do. Fortunately a complex society like ours offers a vast range of potentially lucrative and rewarding occupations not available to people within the armed forces. I don't doubt that many of these are accessible to people with an IQ less than 83.

In fairness to Dr Peterson, in the lecture, he states that the Army is a reasonable analogue for society (it being a complex, multi-layered organisation) there's sweeper-uppers and potato peelers, right up to leaders, engineers etc. etc.

His point was if the army can't find a use for you, there's probably not much you can offer society .

pst314

His point was if the army can't find a use for you, there's probably not much you can offer society.

Agreed. Where I live, there are programs to find jobs for people of very low intelligence--grocery store baggers for instance--and I have noticed close-up how slow and inefficient these people are at even the simplest tasks.

MC

a complex society like ours offers a vast range of potentially lucrative and rewarding occupations not available to people within the armed forces. I don't doubt that many of these are accessible to people with an IQ less than 83.

Indeed. In the UK, roles such as senior police officer, teacher (public sector), Guardian columnist, humanities lecturer, PR executive and professional sportsman are almost exclusively the realm of the <83ers.

pst314

the Army is a reasonable analogue for society

With the added proviso that although your local grocery store can hire the occasional retarded person to do menial jobs, the military cannot afford to have such people--everyone must be able to do their job without excessive supervision and everyone must be qualified to do other jobs in an emergency. (Think of battles where, urgently needing infantrymen, clerks and cooks were given a rifle and sent into combat.)

R. Sherman

Fortunately a complex society like ours offers a vast range of potentially lucrative and rewarding occupations not available to people within the armed forces. I don't doubt that many of these are accessible to people with an IQ less than 83.

Professor of Gender Studies, perhaps?

Other than that, I'm trying to think of something "rewarding and lucrative" that a person with an IQ < 83 could do? (Query whether "rewarding" is should even be considered, much less the problem of defining "lucrative." I should think society would be happy if such people had positions which allowed them to be self-supporting without public assistance.)

Anyway, from a quick Google search, I was directed here, which notes for IQs between 80 and 89:

"Above the threshold for normal independent functioning. Can perform explicit routinized hands-on tasks without supervision as long as there are no moments of choice and it is always clear what has to be done. Assembler, food service." Both of those fit within several military MOS classifications, BTW.

As our society becomes more technologically complex, those are the types of jobs most likely to become completely automated.

Sam Duncan

Douglas Murray: It's Sowell's “utopian vision” and “tragic vision”, again. They believe that humanity is perfectable, that things like misogyny and misandry can be “destroyed” (or, in the words of that idiotic slogan of a few years back, that poverty can be “made history”), while the rest of us understand that people are flawed and that society must acknowledge and work around our flaws as best it can.

“They are quite good, but absolutely crying out for men of *any* ability because they don't have a single one, and the women can't sing the lower tones.”

I was brought up among operatic singers (my parents met through one of the country's premier amateur societies), and was about to say much the same thing. Good tenors, especially, are like hens' teeth.

“What's never pointed out about the privilege industry is that it is predicated on the idea that all good fortune/blessings/luck/etc. is morally neutral, i.e. random and unearned. Yet, somehow the recipients are required to feel guilt (an emotion based solely upon morality) because of same.”

Yes, it's fascinating to watch them tie themselves in logical knots, isn't it? The claim that two-parent families are preferable for the upbringing of children would no doubt result in fits of the vapours, if not actual rioting, at San Diego State University, yet here it is claiming that anyone so brought up is “privileged”.

“ Fortunately a complex society like ours offers a vast range of potentially lucrative and rewarding occupations not available to people within the armed forces.”

Absolutely. The supply of things-that-need-doing - i.e., jobs - is infinite. You just might not like what a lot of them turn out to be, or what people are willing to pay you for doing them. Shovelling shit for less than minimum wage, for example. I've heard Peterson make this argument a couple of times, and it's persuasive, however even the most lowly military job isn't just running towards the enemy shouting, “BANG!”. It does require a certain minimum level of intelligence that a great many unskilled civilian jobs wouldn't.

That said, I completely agree with him that increasing automation (encouraged by government mandated price-fixing in the labour market, I might add) is gradually reducing the availability of that kind of job to humans. And it's probably the case that the situation in the military is a straw in the wind. A few centuries ago, they'd take anyone who could swing a big stick; it's only since the advent of firearms and other technologies that it's ended up closed off to that bottom 10%.

Karl

In fairness to Dr Peterson, in the lecture, he states that the Army is a reasonable analogue for society

Heaven forbid I should be unfair to the man, he's my archetype of a living freakin' God, but honestly the army is a rigidly hierarchical totalitarian system which is why it's not really a good analogy for a vaguely free-market society. Professor Peterson promotes the excellent notion of competence (as opposed to dominance) hierarchies, and the beauty of capitalism is the way in which it is entirely built of independent competence hierarchies - as many, in fact, as there are competencies people are willing to pay for. I'd go so far as to say that a free market generates more of these independent ways of forging a living than any other economic system. Which is why it offers opportunities for the low-IQ (or low-anything, in fact) that the army cannot.

As our society becomes more technologically complex, those are the types of jobs most likely to become completely automated.

Possibly. However, as our society has become more technologically complex I see YouTube creating more opportunities for the low IQ than I would have ever thought possible. I suspect that the opposite may in fact be true.

Daniel Ream

one of the questions says, “I grew up in a two-parent household,” as if that’s some kind of inherent [white] privilege, doing the right thing.

"From where I'm standing, 'privilege' looks a lot like good choices and hard work." ~ another quote I can't remember the attribution for

the army is a rigidly hierarchical totalitarian system which is why it's not really a good analogy for a vaguely free-market society.

Fortunately for Peterson's theory, it's a pretty good analogy for what we've actually got.

David

Yes, it’s fascinating to watch them tie themselves in logical knots, isn’t it?

Educationally speaking, we live in deranged times. As seen in these parts repeatedly, there are so-called educators whose careers seem directed at undermining the life chances of students with brown skin, and who insist that brown-skinned students needn’t learn punctuality, foresight and rudimentary grammar, which are disdained as “white values,” as tools of “white privilege,” and therefore racist. (See, for instance, the second item here and the link immediately below it.)

And the people who are undermining children’s potential in this way and excusing them from the most basic standards of competence, and even civility and self-control, are generally the same people who insist on “equity” policies – i.e., equality of outcome regardless of inputs. And they’re generally the same people who insist than any statistical differences in ability between racial groups – differences that they relentlessly exacerbate - can only be the result of racist white people, who, we’re told, are uniquely, even exclusively, prone to this vice.

It’s demented.

Karl

it's a pretty good analogy for what we've actually got.

Excellent - sign me up. I identify as an Admiral.

pst314

but honestly the army is a rigidly hierarchical totalitarian system

The Army devolves decision-making down to the lowest practical level of the hierarchy, as this brings flexibility and speed. (And this goes a long way to explaining why "even" a Private needs to be smart.)

pst314

David, this is OT but you might find it interesting enough to comment on later:

http://quillette.com/2018/04/08/academias-consilience-crisis/

"...decaying scholastic integrity, brought about by a lowered bar for achievement in many social studies programs. How dare we balk at the number of doctorate degrees dished out in exchange for diary entries when review boards and supervising professors are lending them, with abandon, the credibility reserved for double-blind control studies? Fidelity to truth is regularly undercut by the stubborn provincial impulses of wannabe-scholars peddling bald assertion as currency. This is industrial-scale snake-oil retail, and it uses affectations of scholarly decorum as a marketing ploy."

Chester Draws

Gardening is a good job for those of minimal intelligence. One advantage they have is they tend not to get bored. Unlikely to be automated away soon either.

Also people of low IQ need not be stupid at everything. There's a few great footballers who can "see" a football field instantly and don't over think the game.

A tenth of the people I teach are in the bottom 10% (!) and many of them are quite capable of doing routine jobs well. They generally struggle with complex algebra, but they can do quite a lot if you are patient. The usual issue is that they give up because they have to work so much harder to make the same progress and they are always slow.

Truck driver. Concrete layer. Changing tyres. Anything requiring more patience than skill.

I'd rather an IQ of 83 and hard working than one of 93 and lazy, drug-using or bent. So do employers -- we can find work for the stupid when they leave school (being Catholic the school has a bit of a social mission in this regard). We can't do anything with the bent or lazy.

dcardno
...but honestly the army is a rigidly hierarchical totalitarian system which is why it's not really a good analogy for a vaguely free-market society.
That suggests to me that the less capable are more likely to find a spot in the Army than in the society in general, since there are more routine tasks and tasks can be developed to take advantage of the skills (or lack thereof) of the people available to do them. This underlines Peterson's point: that the bottom 10% (or so) in intelligence are unlikely to find a place to contribute.
...as many [competence hierarchies], in fact, as there are competencies people are willing to pay for.
Well, there's the rub, no? The bottom 10% (or so) rarely offer competencies that people are willing to pay for, and even more rarely, that they are willing to pay enough for that the individual in that intelligence range can become self-supporting.
R. Sherman

...there are competencies people are willing to pay for.

I don't disagree, but the question ultimately is "how much," as Sam Duncan points out above. The problem is not the existence of potential competencies as it is governmental interference in the price for same. See, e.g. "minimum wage."

Case in point: I visited a local fast food place for a take out order. The young person behind the counter needed only to 1) manipulate a touch screen to take my order, 2)see the price of my order calculated by a computer, 3) take my money, 4)key it in, 5)give me my change which was also calculated by the computer and 6)hand me my order. Of those six simple tasks, five were muffs. I shit you not. And each time I pointed out a mistake, I received a look which should be reserved for first contact with an alien species.

I got my correct order ultimately, and I'd be willing to toss the kid a few bucks for finally getting it right. But fifteen dollars and hour?

David

We can’t do anything with the bent or lazy.

As I think Peterson points out in the video, there’s no obvious correlation between high IQ and virtue.

David

this is OT but you might find it interesting

Thanks, will take a peek when I’ve a moment.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

"Above the threshold for normal independent functioning. Can perform explicit routinized hands-on tasks without supervision as long as there are no moments of choice and it is always clear what has to be done. Assembler, food service." Both of those fit within several military MOS classifications, BTW.

The error there is that a Soldier only ever performs MOS related tasks and is neither required nor responsible to be able to perform everything in the Manual of Common Tasks (or equivalent for the Marines, Navy, or Air Force) which includes thing like land navigation (with map, protractor, and compass - no GPS), being able to operate a SINCGARS radio (which includes loading the presets and COMSEC correctly), perform first aid, maintain a variety of weapons, and a plethora of other things that require the individual to be able to calculate, analyze, and decide - which is why there is a cap on the number of ASVAB Cat IV recruits (generally corresponding to 80-89 IQ).

In a Cavalry unit even the Chaplain is required to know how to call in an air strike...

Hopp Singg

In my life, I've seen any number of Down's Syndrome people working productively at simple jobs. Mind you, they are invariably cheerful, honest and cooperative.

Governor Squid

A tenth of the people I teach are in the bottom 10% (!)

Are you sure about this? I'm not trying to be a jerk here -- I'm honestly curious as to the proportion of your students having an IQ under 80. My understanding is that many students with uncommonly low IQ were in specialist programs (notwithstanding the efforts made to mainstream as many as possible), so the bottom 10% of the total population and the bottom 10% of the student population may not be the same.

And while a truck driver with an IQ of 85 is believable, what about somebody with an IQ of 75? These are people who have trouble filling out forms, using computers, or reading a schedule. I'm not sure they're going to be the best candidates for a job that requires using GPS, filling out driver logs for DOT, and navigating rush hour traffic. These workers are the ones that Dr. Peterson is talking about, given that most IQs in the 80s are considered "mainstream enough" for government work.

Governor Squid

Of those six simple tasks, five were muffs. I shit you not.

Contrary to my assertion above, I really am a prick at heart. To wit: one of my little daily delights is waiting for the cashier to ring up an order for, say, $9.78 (£6.84), hand them ten dollars (seven pounds), and then give them three pennies (four pence) after the machine has already told them to give me twenty-two cents (16p).

To their credit, most are able to figure out that they can simply hand me a quarter (20p), but it's fun watching the little hamster running in the little wheel while they're working on the problem.

Karl

The bottom 10% (or so) rarely offer competencies that people are willing to pay for

I think I disagree with you there, it seems to me that marketable competencies are distributed throughout the population independently of IQ, it's just that a lack of general intelligence presents a formidable barrier to offering the full working package as it were. As well as barring you from the preponderance of jobs for which the only qualification is a minimal mental capacity.

Which is why I'm optimistic about the way in which technology might reduce the limitations low IQ imposes on ones ability to uncover and market those talents, and the capacity for 'micropayment' schemes to separate those competencies from the need to fulfil entirely pre-defined employment roles.

David

I really am a prick at heart.

My arithmetic is terrible. You’re a fiend.

jabrwok

Of possible relevance to the discussion of IQ and marketable skills: https://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

Daniel Ream

Gardening is a good job for those of minimal intelligence.

Gardening is a hobby, not a job. Food production is largely automated and requires more than an 83 IQ. General labour for professional landscaping might be all right; certainly designing, planning and managing the job will require more than an 83 IQ.

Killer Marmot
Gardening is a hobby, not a job.

Incorrect. If you garden on your own property then it's a hobby.

But if other people pay you to tend their garden then it's a job.

WTP

So how many people have an IQ of 83 or less? Ten percent of us. Now, if that doesn’t hurt you to hear, then you didn’t hear it properly. Because what it implies is that, in a complex society like ours, there isn’t anything for 10% of the population to do.

Yes, but Bell Curve. There's also some high IQ people who contribute to significant amounts of counter-productivity. I think you know the kind of high IQ people to whom I refer...

David

Riposte of note.

pst314

Riposte of note

to a feminazi.

David

The offshoot thread featuring Ms Katy Stoll is also worth a squint. Citing a statistic is now “bullying,” apparently.

R. Sherman

@Governor Squid,

When I mentioned handing me my change above, that was the problem which constituted the muff, except mine was worse. The bill was something like $4.17 and I handed over a fiver before realizing I had seventeen cents in change, which I handed over after he'd keyed in $5.00. He took the seventeen cents from me, but eyed me like a master swindler when I told him, my change was one dollar and not eighty-three cents. Getting my correct change involved a manager and a 60 second explanation of the transaction.

Governor Squid

A commenter on the Shapiro thread: "Facts don't care about your fillings."

That's a thing of beauty, that is.

champ

@jabrwok: Italy has the fourth highest national IQ? Really?

David

That’s a thing of beauty, that is.

Ms Stoll’s rhetorical technique, currently very fashionable, is what happens when someone tries to display their woke credentials (often by being needlessly obnoxious) but is ill-prepared for a rebuttal or any kind of debate. And so instead they frame the person who can out-argue them as somehow obviously malign and therefore unworthy of further engagement. What’s funny is that the people who do this, and do it a lot, don’t seem to realise that the rest of us can see.

Governor Squid

R. Sherman:

In one of my first jobs, I worked with a woman who was lovely and bubbly and friendly and dumb as a stump. She once rang up a purchase for eight bucks and change, and when the customer handed her a tenner, she accidentally keyed it in as a hundred. She excused herself, ran to the back room, grabbed sixty bucks from her purse, ran back to the register, borrowed thirty bucks from me, took the tenner from the customer, and then put the hundred bucks in the till.

The register said she needed to make $91.xx in change, so she pulled all the cash back out of the drawer, took out her sixty, gave me back my thirty, and gave the customer her dollar and whatever. The whole time, she never gave a second thought to what she was doing.

I was the new kid, so I didn't feel it was my place to laugh at the ditzy 30-something, but the customer and I exchanged a look that spoke volumes. (My cow-orker was eventually let go after being caught in delicto flagrante in the storeroom with one of the Italian guys from the pizza place next door.)

I daresay things haven't improved in the labor pool in the 30-odd years since.

jabrwok

Italy has the fourth highest national IQ? Really?

Well, according to that list. I didn't check a lot of 'em.

The worldwide distribution appears to match what I've seen elsewhere though.

David

Model students.

Ed Bo

In the late 1990s, at the height of the dotcom boom/bubble, I had a particularly harrowing airport rental-car shuttle ride. The driver was completely incapable of understanding the most basic requirements of the job, such as making sure everyone had gotten on or off the shuttle before starting up again. Multiple times, he started moving while people were actively stepping on or off.

It got me thinking how companies must have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for these basic jobs. I started asking friends if they had seen similar things, and almost all agreed that they had.

Through the two full economic cycles since then, I have been attentive to the capabilities of people working at these simple jobs. Now my measure of whether the economy is recovering locally is the decline in capability of the people working counter service at the local fast food joints.

Usually now at our Mexican counter-service eateries, if I specify "brown rice, black beans" together, they will take a scoop of the brown rice, and then ask "what type of beans?" That didn't happen in the recession.

WTP

Through the two full economic cycles since then, I have been attentive to the capabilities of people working at these simple jobs.

Had a similar thing. My wife worked incident support at Oracle. There was a woman for some company who was notorious with the support staff for being thick. Then one day people realized they hadn't heard from her in a while, right after the dotcom bust. Then one day, she was calling in from a different company. That was the sign from God that we were out of the woods. People like that need to be tracked. They are our best economic indicators. But I suppose it would be too easy to manipulate such a system. Sigh...

Tim Newman

Thanks, will take a peek when I’ve a moment.

Translation: I’ll have forgotten about it completely and permanently by tea time.

tolkein

Italy has the fourth highest national IQ?

So what?

The gap from Italy to US is a nothing, 4 points. What's more interesting is Botswana, average 70, but actually, relatively speaking, doing pretty OK.

I reluctantly believe the relative IQs, but there's more going on in society than just IQs.

David

Translation: I’ll have forgotten about it completely and permanently by tea time.

[ Musters best attempt at wounded indignation. ]

Er, I’ll have you know, sir, that I was distracted by the prospect of preparing a meal. It’s always a bit of a gamble and requires my full attention.

Governor Squid

I reluctantly believe the relative IQs, but there's more going on in society than just IQs.

If imbeciles are making decisions for themselves, they may find themselves at a disadvantage in a number of ways. If imbeciles are making decisions for the whole country, then everybody is going to find themselves disadvantaged in a lot of ways. If geniuses decide that they should make the important decisions, they'll quickly be pushed aside by the most ruthless genius, and replaced by imbeciles who know how to follow orders.

I'd really like to be free to screw up my own life, thanks.

pst314

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/374847.php

April 17, 2018
On Starbucks and "Racism"
1. Restaurants/coffee shops like Starbucks exist, in case the Social Justice Warriors weren't aware of this, to sell things to paying customers.
2. These shops usually have chairs and tables. These are not "free" for anyone to use. They are provided as an included benefit, a laganape, for those who actually do pay for food or coffee.
. . .

pst314

The gap from Italy to US is a nothing, 4 points. What's more interesting is Botswana, average 70...

Early 20th Century immigrants to America tested worryingly low in IQ, leading to much talk about inferior races. But in a generation or less the numbers improved dramatically. As I recall, language barriers were part of the problem. I wonder if there is something cultural going on in Botswana, such as widespread illiteracy and an overwhelming prevalence of jobs involving manual labor. But of course this is something I am far from expert on.

WTP

Call me stupid, but in so far as the details go, I think IQ is crap. Perhaps it has meaning in context of similar cultures/societies/whatever but the idea that you can give a test to someone raised by Harvard PhD parents and that person scores say 140, then give the same test to some scoundrel from the poor parts of Dublin who scores a 110 and have it mean much in relation to each other seems like waaaay too much magic. These tests taken on what day? How often? Under what conditions? At what age? They're not even as valid as cholesterol tests, in this ignoramus's NSHO. Not that there's no meaning at all there but the idea that these numbers mean much outside of the very abstract, seems very unscientific. Perhaps at the low ends, the 50s, 60s, 70s there is a meaning. But supposedly Richard Feynman had an IQ of just 125. Al Gore's was supposedly 135. Right. IQ seems to me to be whatever people want to believe.

jabrwok

I was distracted by the prospect of preparing a meal.

The Crock Pot is your friend! I recently realized I can even cook steak in mine. Three hours on low and I can eat it with a fork. Yum!

language barriers were part of the problem

A lot of IQ tests nowadays are pattern-recognition tests and don't require linguistic facility. Early 20th Century tests were still in the development phase, and many were (probably deliberately) cultural knowledge tests rather than cognitive ability tests. Needless to say, those tests are no longer in use.

R. Sherman

Usually now at our Mexican counter-service eateries, if I specify "brown rice, black beans" together, they will take a scoop of the brown rice, and then ask "what type of beans?" That didn't happen in the recession.

You make a good point. One with a basic level of intelligence should be able to hear, remember and carry out a series of (at least) three connected tasks. "This order is to go. I'll have a Number 6 with onion rings instead of fries and a diet Coke." How often does such an order become an inquisition with the customer having to repeat each part of the order?

David

IQ seems to me to be whatever people want to believe.

It’s actually a very strong predictor of life outcomes, more so than, say, childhood circumstance. Stuart Ritchie’s book Intelligence is a pretty good introduction to the science and history.

lotocoti

Riposte of note

Imagine if you mentioned that women were under represented in work place fatalities.

Spiny Norman

Model students.

Overly-Dramatic SoC (Student of Color): "I'm so fucking tired of this fucking..." [various forms of "fuck" continue for some time]

Policeman trying to escort white student government members off campus: "Are you going to let us do our job?"

SoC: [screaming] "ARE YOU GONNA LET ME LIVE????"

Job offers for Overly-Dramatic SoC are sure to pour in from across the nation. Or not.

Spiny Norman

The gap from Italy to US is a nothing, 4 points. What's more interesting...

Well, according to the wisdom of Social Media, that 4-point gap makes all the difference in the world: between Italians being normal, intelligent human beings and Americans being utter worthless morons - the election of Donald Trump being undeniable evidence.

I decided some time ago that the statistic-savvy yoots on social media are a danger to themselves and others.

Flubber

Douglas Murray: It's Sowell's “utopian vision” and “tragic vision”, again. They believe that humanity is perfectable, that things like misogyny and misandry can be “destroyed” (or, in the words of that idiotic slogan of a few years back, that poverty can be “made history”), while the rest of us understand that people are flawed and that society must acknowledge and work around our flaws as best it can.

Hmm. It's their vision of perfection that got me. It seems to involve believing self evident nonsense such as diversity is strength, global warming is actually happening, the state is your friend, Islam is a religion of peace, multiculturalism is good, Jeremy Corbyn isn't aa frothing nutbag...

The list of nonsense is ever explaining.

Pogonip

Jabrwok, you should have been here for the small appliance reports. You could have cut the excitement with an electric knife.

If you can, find an old crock-pot at a yard sale. The new ones cook too fast, the meat isn’t as tender.

ACTOldFart

Those cheery chaps at ISIS have solved the "what to do with the under-83s" problem in their own characteristic way. When a flock of new recruits turns up, they are quickly sorted through, and the less aware are assigned to the Suicide Bombing Platoon.

Black Ball

I am doing university study now and one of the things we had to do was formulate a science class for Grade 1 students. My topic was the solar system and whilst it was hard not to tell them the facts, the kiddies enjoyed it. The teacher suggested overseeing this lesson suggested I let the kids think for themselves to arrive at the correct answers that I was after, like the biggest planet etc. I responded with something about climate change and allowing students to think for themselves, which was met with a scowl of disapproval. The things we need to learn now is a mish mash of identity politics, What Trump Said and grievance settling.

Black Ball

Imagine if you mentioned that women were under represented in work place fatalities.

Did chuckle.

PiperPaul

"cow-orker"

Does use of this word signify another former Alt.Folklore.Urbanite or has this made its way into other parts?

Chester Draws

Squid : most schools have a wildly different number of the bottom 10%, because they sort by area -- hence wealth of parents, hence brains.

My school takes a very average pool, and takes special care of the bottom -- we get our share. NZ areas tend not to be as uniform as some other countries, with rich and poor living in very close proximity.

This was not true when I taught at a private school.

In NZ only the very, very lowest are non-mainstream. I've had kids with IQs in the low 70s -- they learn to read, slowly, and not much more. I've had full on autistics but no Down's (they're pretty rare in NZ).

IQ is often maligned, especially by the egalitarian left, but it is far and away the best predictor of school success. Over 50% of the difference in grades is attributable to IQ. Hard work is next. Teachers and schools far less.

Most of the complaints that the wealthy do better at school are actually wrong, because the hidden variable is brains. Money doesn't help your grades (although it will obviously give you a leg up in post-school, at least initially).

Spending money on poor schools has far less effect than the reformers would wish (although taking money from rich schools by the same token does them little harm, so I'm all for a system like NZ's, where poor area schools get a bit more. Money doesn't change brains or work ethic and barely changes the quality of teaching.

Spiny Norman

Well, I think we all knew this was coming. Fat-body-builder Tumblrinas are up in (bingo-winged) arms that a retailer dares stock petite sizes. It's dangerous and irresponsible, you see? Apparently, small women must be shamed for being slim, dammit.

(>_<)

(For what it's worth, my ex-gf is 5'11", (20 years ago) weighed 130-135 lbs, and wore a US size 4. She wore a size 2 in high school. She might weigh 145 now. She's just naturally slim.)

Daniel Ream

Does use of this word signify another former Alt.Folklore.Urbanite or has this made its way into other parts?

I first heard it on alt.sysadmin.recovery.

In one of my first jobs, I worked with a woman who was lovely and bubbly and friendly and dumb as a stump.

I've mentioned this before, but an acquaintance of mine is a woman in her forties who often texts me from the store asking how to calculate 20%, 30%, or 60% off of some round number (sale prices). When I point out that she's holding an $800 calculator, she complains she can't figure out how to find the calculator app.

She's a primary school teacher.

Daniel Ream

Fat-body-builder Tumblrinas are up in (bingo-winged) arms that a retailer dares stock petite sizes.

"Tory MP Bob Blackman also claimed idealising such small sizes could lead to young women developing eating disorders."

"A spokesman for charity Eating Disorder Support said that [...] smaller sizes do not cause problems with eating disorders"

David

This was not true when I taught at a private school... IQ is often maligned, especially by the egalitarian left

It’s remarkable to me just how many politicians and media commentators hold forth on the supposed moral and intellectual superiority of state comprehensive education while having little or no personal experience of it, or of the range of people it supposedly serves. About 10 years ago, the then-Labour Party schools minister Andrew Adonis, whose educational experience is basically boarding schools and Oxford, made some extraordinary comments. Specifically,

There is no genetic or moral reason why the whole of society should not succeed to the degree that the children of the professional classes do today, virtually all getting five or more good GCSEs and staying on in education beyond 16.

Again, there’s the assumption, mentioned upthread, that an IQ is something you can just pour into a head, any head, given a sufficient number of years spent being bored in school. And so you have to wonder, has Andrew Adonis actually met a selection of children from across the entire ability range? Has he met them gathered in one room? I suspect not. And if he were to, would he close one eye and pretend that the child at one end of that spectrum (who may not be able to read GCSE questions let alone answer them correctly) is inherently as capable as the child at the other extreme? Or would be, somehow, magically, if not for the evils of capitalism and what Adonis called “social privilege”?

At my school, the span of ability ranged from a girl who’d memorised the periodic table to people who didn’t know their own postcodes and couldn’t be relied on to find out, or to retain the information until the following day. Their inability to do this, or other simple things, didn’t seem to have much to do with capitalism or “social privilege.” And the conceit that these extremes are interchangeable, and that the latter group could easily be enthusing about the properties of iridium, or parsing Chaucer, is ludicrous.

And this, remember, was Labour’s Minister for Schools.

Tim Newman

Call me stupid, but in so far as the details go, I think IQ is crap.

Possibly, but it's a good indicator as to how well someone will do in a modern, advanced economy.

Tim Newman

One with a basic level of intelligence should be able to hear, remember and carry out a series of (at least) three connected tasks. "This order is to go. I'll have a Number 6 with onion rings instead of fries and a diet Coke."

I invite readers to try this in Nigeria and report back with the results.

Tim Newman

I've had kids with IQs in the low 70s -- they learn to read, slowly, and not much more.

They go on to become props.

Tim Newman

a girl who’d memorised the periodic table

Happy Henry Licks Betty's Big Cu...

I'll stop there.

David

[ Fetches Stool of Shame.* ]

PiperPaul

"She's a primary school teacher."

I guess asking a student for technical support might undermine her authority somewhat.

PiperPaul

"you can just pour into a head, any head, given a sufficient number of years spent being bored in school"

It's just like computers! Just give everyone the right software and they'll all be geniuses (or at least they'll be able to generate push-button output that is difficult to distinguish from competence without extended squinting and careful inspection)!

David

Regarding the aforementioned undermining of minority students’ life chances by supposedly ‘progressive’ educators, here’s a thing.

Further to this and the first item here, quoting Katherine Kersten’s coverage of leftist indoctrination, racist dogma and plunging standards in Minnesota’s public schools, take a look at this rather telling footnote, on the subsequent ‘journalism’ by Minnesota Public Radio.

Because if you dare to uncover the scale of the indoctrination and its ugly racial fixations, you’ll be smeared as a happy bedfellow of neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

pst314

I invite readers to try this in Nigeria and report back with the results.

I have trouble when I try that in American cities.

pst314

[ Fetches Stool of Shame.* ]

But meanwhile henchlesbians look speculatively at Tim.

R. Sherman

Because if you dare to uncover the scale of the indoctrination and its ugly racial fixations, you’ll be smeared as a happy bedfellow of neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

It's beyond question now, that the MSM refuses to engage in good faith debate. (See, e.g. Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman). If censorship, "no-platforming," rioting, etc. don't work, the Left will simply lie. We are on the cusp of a new "Samizdat Era," where we're passing around mimeographed slips of paper with web addresses of places where one can get alternative information.

WTP

It’s actually a very strong predictor of life outcomes, more so than, say, childhood circumstance. Stuart Ritchie’s book Intelligence is a pretty good introduction to the science and history.

Thanks, will take a peek when I’ve a moment. Maybe after tea...Just kidding. Thanks for the recommendation. Wish I'd have the time for it. I did glance over the parts available on Amazon. It looks like it probably has at least some secondary value even if I do find I disagree with it's conclusion. The opening parts about the history of the study of intelligence is itself something I'd be interested in reading about. I certainly agree with some of the criticism of the criticisms of IQ mentioned in the intro. And I of course agree that certain people are more intelligent than others and that such can be measured to some degree within certain contexts, as I allude to above. Maybe I will pick it up this summer if I have time and remember. But in general, and yes I'm just going with my ignorant, though fairly well trained gut here, I'm suspicious of IQ scores and such for the same base reason I'm suspicious of the global warming arguments, both pro and con. And also due to how much of what we had been told decades ago about health and the studies of such that are now being backtracked.

But also from a scientific perspective, I view with an extremely jaundiced eye the use of an entity or what have you to measure the entity itself. And what with the IQ being (popularly anyway) bandied about as a discrete whole number from zero to, what 200 or so? Not that I'm a fan of the Briggs-Meyers personality tests either, but it would seem to me that a proper measure of intelligence should consist of more than one dimension.

WTP

"cow-orker"

Does use of this word signify another former Alt.Folklore.Urbanite or has this made its way into other parts?

The term "cow-orker" originate back in the early days of Dilbert popularity and the internet, possibly pre-web? Scott Adams had a newsletter he would send out (pre-blog ages) and decided to hold a contest to have his readers pick a group term for those with whom we work who most disturb us, or something like that. "Cow-orker" was the winner and made its way into a few Dilbert strips, but not sure how long Adams continued to use it.

David

Thanks for the recommendation. Wish I’d have the time for it.

It’s a short and very readable primer on the subject, only 100 pages or so. There’s no needless jargon, it covers most of the bases, briefly, and debunks most of the usual anti-IQ woo. You could read the whole thing in an afternoon.

TomJ
They go on to become props.

Oi, Newman, no. The front row union is the intellectual powerhouse of any side. This explains why props drunk so much beer after a match; it takes at least half a dozen pints to bring us down to the level of a scrum half and at least another three more before the winners start making sense.

WTP

Ah...and having read further on....to be clear, I do believe that there is somewhat significant degree of variability of potential intelligence that is innate or hereditary or whatever. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as dear old Mom used to say. It's more the measurement and what we infer from such that I have a good bit of discomfort with. The complexities of Nature vs. Nurture are, as I see it today, beyond human comprehension. Somewhat similar, though stretching it a bit, to what the excerpt of the book refers, that rationality was once seen as divine and could only fleetingly be tapped into by humans.

I have also in the last one or two dozen years become very much aware of the shift of the idea of "intelligence" being the ability to memorize things versus and ability to use logic well or to properly infer when inferences are valid and to not infer when they are not. Schools over the last 100-200 years or so placed considerable emphasis on rote learning but very little on understanding. This makes sense in the context of how modern education has evolved in that the former leads itself much more to economies of scale.

I see now where it's 160 pages. Perhaps I will order it later on today but need to get to work. Thanks.

TomJ

s/winners/wingers/

Prop fingers and diddy on-screen keyboard are not necessarily a match made in heaven…

David

Oi, Newman, no.

It’s all going to kick off now.

Governor Squid

I'm suspicious of IQ scores and such for the same base reason I'm suspicious of the global warming arguments, both pro and con.

At least in Peterson's case, he's honest enough to state explicitly that for all of IQ's strength in predicting student outcomes, it still leaves 70% of the equation up for debate. Which is to say, it's a good indicator, but it's hardly the sole defining characteristic for any given individual.

The really important thing I took from that part of the discussion was how poorly most other social & behavioral measures perform. I think he said IQ was 3 or 4 times more reliable as a measure than these others, and given the limits of IQ measurement, it speaks volumes to the fact that we're making social and educational policy based on very shaky measurements.

(PS: I picked up "cow-orker" from alt.sysadmin.recovery, and have been an evangelist for the term ever since.)

Ed Bo

it would seem to me that a proper measure of intelligence should consist of more than one dimension.

Most good intelligence tests have mutliple dimensions, yielding multiple scores, of which the "IQ" value is some kind of average. But the various scores tend to be relatively well correlated with each other, implying an underlying factor.

Captain Nemo

Stay classy, professor: http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article209197719.html

Why do I suspect that Barbara Bush's campaigns and initiatives against illiteracy have done more to improve the lives of other people than the activities of Professor Jarrar?

David

Stay classy, professor

You could easily get the impression that they only employ arrested adolescents.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

OK, I'll share any snippet, because this one takes the cake - or at least has eaten the whole thing.

From the esteemed journal, Fat Studies, Tempo-rarily fat: A queer exploration of fat time.

The authors consider how heteronormative temporal arrangements regulate fat bodies. Fat bodies, like normative bodies, are made meaningful in relation to normative notions of time...Overall, the authors explore how fat subjects are limited or constricted by chrononormativity.

Okeedokee - "queer" time (other than DST) will become a thing now, I guess. Perhaps new watches will be needed with "fat" minutes that are 112 seconds.

Also, seeing as how it was in the side bar, Sedentary lifestyle: Fat queer craft.

Leveraging the fat body’s association with slowness, the artistic and narrative work demonstrate how time, corporeality, adipose tissue, affect, and context mediated through an academic-activist-artist [i.e., professional BS slinger] lens can make fat known in unusual ways.

"Leveraging the fat body" - for some reason Archimedes comes to mind.

pst314

You could easily get the impression that they only employ arrested adolescents

Maybe the problem is that so few of them do get arrested. :-|

The comments to this entry are closed.

For Amazon US use this link .

Your filthy consumerism supports this blog.

Blogroll