Scratch a liberal, a eugenicists bleeds.
https://nitter.net/an0nygir1/status/1744390292118122810
She's a centrist; while she supports Nazi Germany she also recognizes that Imperial Japan makes some good points.
That's the point of the name Axis, right? That the world would turn on the connection between the involved nations, making it the literal center if you orient by motion rather than mass. Maybe that's what centrists have been trying to say this whole time . . .
ask me about my feminist agenda
racial IQ tests
Time truly is a flat circle
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_McClung
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenic_feminism
"eugenic feminist" male ally: "We must enact policies to ensure only smokeshows with huge honkers are born in this country."
Anyone who uses the term "IQ" should be required to explain what the "Q" stands for, while being lined up against a firing squad.
IQ is a dumb measure and has historically been used to justify some heinous things, but on curiosity what has the word Quotient got to do with why it’s bad? It means the result of a division. I.e. the test score divided by an expected standard score to give a ratio of the result to that standard. I don’t think that the part that makes the scores fall in a 50-150 range is the evil part. I think it’s use as a tool to separate people often by racial and class differences with plausible deniability is the evil part.
IQ is a dumb measure and has historically been used to justify some heinous things
The basic concept of measured cognitive capacity to diagnose physical injuries/malnutrition, extreme trauma, and developmental problems is genuinely good and helpful. I want a doctor to be able to take a baseline and compare it to person-struck-in-the-head and produce a meaningful quantifiable measure of the degraded capacity.
I don’t think that the part that makes the scores fall in a 50-150 range is the evil part. I think it’s use as a tool to separate people often by racial and class differences with plausible deniability is the evil part.
The whole eugenics aspect of IQ is gibberish. Nobody can tell you what the divisor and the dividend are in their IQ quotients. Numbers tend to get spouted out entirely as forms of marketing. Self-help gurus all insist they've got 200+ IQs. Kids locked up in the carceral state and subjected to chronic malnutrition, psychological trauma, and physical abuse are labeled "deficient" by their nature rather than their conditioning. Whole social cohorts are slandered based on fictitious and fabricated data.
All this facilitates the process of bureaucratizing evil social policies. But the pseudo-scientific justifications for trash treatment begin by the labeling of populations as "trash people" in the same way that elite social networks inflate their own importance by giving one another "High IQ" participation trophies.
The whole eugenics aspect of IQ is gibberish.
Its entirely gibberish
Draw a clock. Get hit in the head. Try to draw a clock again. Ability to do this is degraded. We can apply a baseline "100" number to your original performance and quantify the difference after the head injury to describe a degradation in your mental capacity.
That's a normal, scientifically meaningful measurement of one's Intelligence Quotient.
Lining up a 1000 people, asking them to draw clocks (nevermind how many are totally unfamiliar with what a traditional clock face looks like), then ranking their clock drawing skills on a bell curve and using that to measure their individual mental capacities.
That's gibberish.
Drawing a clock has nothing to do with intelligence. Are you okay?
Drawing a clock has nothing to do with intelligence.
Drawing a clock is a classic test for the mental disease Alzheimer's. And the relative ability to perform this task illustrates a strict, measurable change in cognitive function. The disease physically destroys your capacity to perform these mental tasks. The ability to recognize shapes, decompose images into their component parts, and manipulate instruments for the purpose of reproducing mental images are all absolutely applications of human intelligence. And they can be improved, degraded, or destroyed through physical changes to the brain.
Incidentally, as small children develop increasing cognitive capacity and improved fine motor skills, we can see this ability improve over time. Babies quite literally get smarter as they get older and develop more complex brain functions. That's one reason why things like infant malnutrition, disease, and extreme stress can cause long term cognitive damage. If you're harmed during the critical period of mental development, it quite literally r-slur's your cognitive ability (the strict medical origin of the term) and forces you to dedicate significantly more effort later in life to catch up (assuming you aren't permanently harmed).
Recognizing the symptoms of this damage early can let a physician know a problem exists and present treatment before the damage becomes too difficult to heal. It also helps to remove the moral component of misbehavior, by tying it back to a material condition rather than some ethical or spiritual deviancy. Your kid isn't acting out in class because the kid is "bad", its because the kid missed a milestone and needs help to repair/compensate for the difficulty. In that sense, measures like IQ are extremely useful in the same way that eye-exams and hearing tests are useful when diagnosing other physiological conditions that impact quality of life.
The only place IQ even remotely makes any sense as a measure is for the development of children. If you're 12 years old and have an IQ in the 150s, you're going to be measurably cognitively ahead of your age peers in at least some ways. That's important and relevant to education, but it's the kind of disparity that generally evaporates in adulthood. Insofar as high IQ kids become high-achieving adults (which isn't very far, as a general rule) it's because they got a head start and developed a love of learning (and were rewarded for doing intellectual things, both intrinsically and extrinsically).
The difference between an average IQ 14 year old and a 140 IQ 14 year old is extremely stark and obvious even to a casual observer. The difference between an average IQ 40 year old and a 140 IQ 40 year old is much, much less significant. The idea that it's capturing some immutable and durable part of your intrinsic intelligence and ability is nonsense. It's not even that tightly correlated to adult achievement: very very high IQ children almost never become brilliant, world-changing adult thinkers.
If you're 12 years old and have an IQ in the 150s
Then you're ahead of the curve. But IQs over 100 simply aren't that interesting, outside of the handful of savants (and even those are heavily overstated). The sociological purpose of studying IQ goes back to the idea of eye and ear exams and general physical fitness tests. The point is to find kids who are suffering some kind of physical impairment and alleviate it, not to pick a few mega-minds out of the crowd and put them on pedestals. Are you underperforming the crowd because of your diet? We need to get you more food. Are you underperforming because of an injury? We need to get you medical relief and rehabilitative therapy. Are you suffering from a congenital disease? We need to provide you with care to accommodate your needs. Can you not read the blackboard? We'll get you some glasses.
Are you batting 140 in a field of 100? Good for you. Now piss off, you're not important.
The difference between an average IQ 14 year old and a 140 IQ 14 year old is extremely stark
By the nature of statistical analysis, sure. Even then, the action you take in this case is to simply provide the kid with the next rung of activities, consistent with someone more fully developed. That's easy to the point of being trivial and not terribly interesting from a policy perspective.
The difference between an average IQ 40 year old and a 140 IQ 40 year old is much, much less significant.
At the "mean standard" of adulthood, you should be able to operate independently as a fully mature adult. The ability to operate a little faster and more nimbly doesn't change anything for you. Its the folks who fall under the normative threshold that need attention, because they're the ones struggling with the existing societal layout.
If everyone needs to climb a staircase to come and go from the city center, and the stairs are 10 steps high, the guy who can comfortably climb 12 steps isn't any more interest than the guy who can do 10. Its the guy that can only do 8 that needs support. And the degree of the disparity is less important than clearing the base threshold, because tripping over the hurdle is more of a general social problem than clearly it by a little or a lot.
There are real policy implications to the "everyone in this cohort operates at an 80 IQ". But the folks making these claims more often than not don't actually want to implement public policy friendly to this cohort. What they want is to segregate them and exploit their perceived weaknesses. In the same way that we target the elderly with phone scams and spam quack medical cures at folks with chronic conditions, the conversation around IQ inevitably departs from "how can we make a more equitable and functional society" into "how can I benefit from others' disadvantage".
Implicitly assigning IQ by race, gender, and other phenotypic characteristics tends to be about justifying the degradation of conditions of exploitation. It has nothing to do with their actual intelligence, save perhaps that the more predatory and gullible will aggressively target this group.
very very high IQ children almost never become brilliant, world-changing adult thinkers.
We like to apply the IQ metric after the fact. So everyone in the top income brackets and the highest positions within public and private bureaucracies get to receive some "High IQ" or equivalent merit badge. Nobody is actually out there sitting Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump, Magnus Carlsen, and Ken Jennings down to confirm whether or not they're in the top 1% of pattern recognition solvers. (Carlsen pretty explicitly refused to take one, leading to endless internet speculation) That's in no small part because scoring high on pattern recognition tests doesn't tend to track well with social aptitude, and so "High IQ" doesn't actually lead to rapid climbs in bureaucracies.
Yep, agreed on all counts. It matters for kids, but only as a measure for how quickly you've developed some skills. That has implications for educators, but the relevance outside that is minimal. The fetishization of IQ outside that context is almost always just a proxy for
Hm. Glad to see the Clintonite party revealing themselves to be abhorrent, wretched, cracker-assed eugenicists. Glad to see the masks falling off-- because bet, these will be the same cracker wretches cudgeling and screaming that "we have to voot bloo otherwise the democracy that only the crackers know and enjoy will fall in on itself".
As always, death to the Great Satan, death to the White Empire, death to Amerika.
My dad voted for Obama and then Clinton in 2016 and he thinks all black people are violent animals that need to be shipped back to Africa. Liberals are monsters, pure and simple, I regard them with the same amount of spite I do for republicans. I just hate that libs somehow get a pass because they wear the mask better than republicans that rip it off at the slightest inconvenience.
Yep, he used to joke that Obama was "whiter than he was" severe brainworms, he's a piece of shit.
I'm German English ancestry all all way back and Obama is whiter than my dad too. That was the problem with Obama.
another kkkrakkka down unlimited genocide on the first world liberals
hell they don't even enjoy it anymore, try as they might, but they just have to beat the other team to keep that smug superiority going
If this person has been diagnosed with Asperger's as her profile name seems to imply, I'm not sure she should be super thrilled about eugenics. Considering labels like "Asperger's" and "Low and High functioning autistic" were invented by the nazi to determine which "untermensch" were going to be subjected to slave labour or simply exterminated.
A lot of libertarians in Poland at least, but also seen that in english internet, got for some reason* convinced that having asperger syndrome makes them some kind of math genius automatically. And thus, because libertarians are nazis and think in nazi terms, modern specifically capitalist ubermensch and since capitalism is something completely natural also evolutionary advantage.
*That reason is probably Janusz Korwin Mikke, who have asperger and is successfully grifting them for nearly 45 years by now.
Well, she should be executed for her beliefs so the point is kinda moot. Nonmattwr where you stand, she should be against a wall
Well Asperger himself was a fucking nazi who sent children to death camps if they weren't "high functioning" enough by his standards so yea
People on the spectrum who aren't fascists really shouldn't be using his name for themselves or at least they should have to read about who he was and decide if they still want to use that label
Center left
If the center is Hitler then this statement is true.
IQ has been totally debunked and anybody who mentions it unironically can get a fucking railroad spike through their skull. I'm so fucking done
I don't expect material analysis from libs but c'mon a literal child could explain why this is the case
Crackers are the elves of real life. Snobby, arrogant, but we all know that they're orcs deep down.
you can't compare IQ scores between groups living in different conditions. It's also dubious on an individual level.
IQ is not a universal measure of intelligence, IQ tests are biased to measure a certain kind of thinking that you find in a certain kind of environment. People grow up in different environments and think in different ways, and the test is gonna favor some over others. American IQ scores increase every year, and the average American IQ score in 1932 has been back-estimated to around 80. According to the logic of this twitter lib, the average American in 1932 would have been "borderline cognitively impaired."
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/23/james-flynn-iq-scores-environment
If you were asked [on an IQ test]: "What do dogs and rabbits have in common?", what would you say?
Interviewer: They are both mammals.
Correct. A kid in 1900 would say: "You use dogs to hunt rabbits." He would get the question wrong because, before people had lots of formal schooling, they had a utilitarian mentality, and they were fixated on the concrete world and using it to advantage. You've been raised in a scientific world where you think classifying things is an obvious prerequisite for understanding them. To you, a dog and a rabbit are just mammals; you are not interested in whether it is a beagle and good for hunting rabbits. So IQ gains over time are totally fascinating if you know how to interpret them and don't just run around saying: "Are we getting more intelligent?"
Nope, I'm outta here, these libs ought to be composted or thrown into the cuck pit...
This woman would get her ass handed to her by South Africa's human rights lawyers.
hey i almost posted this when i saw it yesterday with the title, "soc dem, YOU are Adolf Hitler", decided against it for some reason and forgot to come up with another title lol
considering she's keeping the label of "the only Good™ Autist" how can anyone be surprised. i haven't heard anyone over the age of 50 that wasn't a complete chud keep the term.
