Scratch a liberal, a eugenicists bleeds.
Still with Herr
Still With Her
Whilst Hitler
She’s a centrist; while she supports Nazi Germany she also recognizes that Imperial Japan makes some good points.
Centrally located within the axis powers is centrist. TIL
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
“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.
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?”
This woman would get her ass handed to her by South Africa’s human rights lawyers.
Nope, I’m outta here, these libs ought to be composted or thrown into the cuck pit…
