I wish there was a low IQ society.

[rickvanderhammer]

You're right, advancements in medicine and technology have been exponential, which means we stand to accomplish exponentially more in the next 100 years than the previous.

wrong, you're currently witnessing the peak of civilization

 

[normiesgunnurm]

Continue to fake being a schizophrenic to receive over 2000 euros in benefits every months in welfare, watch anime, play vidya, shitpost and probably kill myself sooner or later. I was studying medicine (medschool in europe) for more than 2
years but dropped out, not because it was hard (i was actually a pretty decent, student) but because the thought of wageslaving 60 hours a week as an MD made me want to kill myself.

2k a month? Which country?

 

[advancedatheist]

Basically like mensa but for people with IQs below 85.  It would be nice to be a part of a community where everyone personally understand how difficult life is with extremely low intellectual bottlenecks.  People with average IQs and higher can't comprehend what life is like with such limited cognitive abilities.  It's especially horrible when you're hyper-aware of how dumb you are and how much it limits you.

There already is such a society. It's called "Sub-Saharan Africa."

 

[blickpall]

wrong, you're currently witnessing the peak of civilization

Right, and I will be tomorrow, and a year from now, and ten years more. Good analysis and talk, strong evidence.

 

[Deleted member 1546]

This is starting to border on "algebra is racist" and "its racist to give written tests to black firefighters". 

>They absolutely are a pseudoscience because there isn't even a consensus on what intelligence is, so how can one create an objective measuring tool for it? 

Its called an IQ test, it is the best overall measure of intelligence (G). 

>Others have gone as far as 13 if I recall correctly. In order to accurately measure all of them you would have to complete a wide arrange of tasks, not all of which are culturally intersectional (like the example I listed with the Amazonian chief and the public transportation analogy, which measures a different type of intelligence - logic/mathematical in combination with linguistic). 

You don't need to measure all of them at once. The fact that there are 1,3 or 13 measures of intelligence does not invalidate the others. Its like the NFL combine, each test measures something different, but that does't invalidate individual ones. 

>What you're testing with the metrics you described can predict whether someone would be well-suited for an education in engineering or physics, but not if they would make a good philosopher, or writer, or historian, or many other professions, each of which can contain what would be considered very "intelligent" people.

There is reason why some cultures, and the female sex don't produce too many mathematicians or engineers, differences in IQ. In regards to the other professions, usually doing well on the SAT o an IQ test means you are smart overall. Its actually very rare to have someone who is genuinely bad at liberal arts but amazing at math. Usually if you're way above average on one you're still pretty good on the other stuff.

>By your definition of intelligence, a blind person couldn't be intelligent, because you are basing intelligence and its metrics purely on visual recognition

You can actually do some psychological and intelligence testing on blind people
http://www.afb.org/info/assessment-considerations-for-students-who-are-blind-and-visually-impaired/5

>As such, a truly universal IQ test would measure all of the various types of intelligence, which includes culturally-sensitive issues. Even if such a test were constructed, the demands of certain cultures have made it such that different peoples need to be better at different things in order to succeed.

Why exactly is different about black American and white American culture that produces a different IQ score. Why do blacks in Africa, the Caribbean, and North America constantly score 70-85?  They keep reproducing the same cultures? If this is the case their most be an underlying genetic component related to cognition that would replicate it. I keep hearing "culture! culture! culture!", and yet I get no explanation of specific cultural variables that would make someone perform worse on an IQ test. Much of this seems like goalpost moving, creating an impossible standard for intelligence measurements as to avoid the politically undesirable conclusions. A perfect test not existing doesn't undermine modern ones.

>Of course an Amazonian warchief will suck at things that first-world white capitalists designed, just as they would suck on a test of hunting patterns, tracking, and plant identification that is designed by the Amazonian warchief. Trying to use the IQ tests designed to be taken by Americans and Europeans to measure the intelligence of other cultures makes the already questionable practice of measuring "intelligence" and grading it on a normalized curve even more suspect; comparing to the "European mean" is scientifically dishonest. 

The mean score for indigenous Americans is typically 85-92. Thats pretty close to the white mean and given the bell curve distribution, means most natives could reasonably adapt to white culture, which many did like the Cherokee before Andrew Jackson took their lands. I'm not sure why capitalism matters either. Communist China outscores us by quite a bit. 

>Even if the Amazonian warchief scored highly on the metrics you proposed, that doesn't help make him more successful in his immediate surroundings and thus is a completely pointless metric to his life and abilities. 

Its not. Being more intelligent is always a benefit. Why do you think he is the chief? Intelligence is heritable. Just like height, skin color, and how prone one is to some diseases. 

>Remember that correlation is not causation. There are confounding variables which are far more likely to contribute to the metrics you listed - for example, people with higher IQ scores are likely to come from wealthier families.

Thats true, and you just flipped things with no explanation. Intelligence produces wealth. Low intelligence people don't do the high demand productive work that generates more wealth. Wealth producing intelligence is less likely. 

> Also, using the argument that they've been around for 100 years is no argument at all. Flat-Earthers have been around for thousands of years, doesn't make their bullshit any more valid. Reliability is not validity, anyone who has taken any statistics ever will be able to tell you this. 

Those aren't the same arguments at all. Statistics show IQ tests are valid.

>But if you don't believe me, take it from the experts who in the past few decades have been discovering the culturally sensitive nature of IQ tests and thus their lack of validity as a comparative tool:

Most psychologists are comfortable with IQ testing. Most are uncomfortable with the possibility of differences in group average intelligence.

>[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]East Asian and Western cultures have developed cognitive styles that differ in fundamental ways[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]lol. What exactly are "cognitive styles". Our brains work differently, but are still structurally the same? These "experts" are desperate becuae they through out these theories ad hoc with no explanation of how or why they exist. [/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]>[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Many psychologists believe that the idea that a test can be completely absent of cultural bias--a recurrent hope of test developers in the 20th century--is contradicted by the weight of the evidence. Raven's Progressive Matrices, for example, is one of several nonverbal intelligence tests that were originally advertised as "culture free," but are now recognized as culturally loaded.[/font][/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Lmao. Now this is considered racist. [/font][/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]>[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Patricia Greenfield, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, argues that nonverbal intelligence tests are based on cultural constructs, such as the matrix, that are ubiquitous in some cultures but almost nonexistent in others.[/font][/font][/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The reason they are non existent is because of the lower IQs. [/font][/font][/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]>[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Similarly, says Greenfield, media technologies like television, film and video games give test-takers from cultures where those technologies are widespread an advantage on visual tests, while test-takers from cultures where the language-based media are more common have advantages on verbal tests[/font]
[/font][/font][/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The inventions of this things are contingent on a high IQ population[/font][/font][/font][/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]>[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Sternberg and his collaborators found that triarchic measures predicted a significant portion of the variance in college grade point average (GPA), even after SAT scores and high school GPA had been accounted for.[/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]So his test being mediocre means intelligence can't be married or doesn't even exist? [/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]>[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The problem with that model, says Patti Harrison, PhD, a professor of school psychology at the University of Alabama, is that the discrepancy doesn't tell you anything about what kind of intervention might help the child learn. Furthermore, the child's actual behavior in the classroom and at home is often a better indicator of a child's ability than an abstract intelligence test, so children might get educational services that are more appropriate to their needs if IQ tests were discouraged, she says.[/font][/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The IQ tests were never intended to tell people what type of treatment was needed. This sounds like an excuse to waste more money on schools instead of admitting some kids are beyond help. [/font][/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]

>As to your final question, it is ludicrous in nature. Of course every parent wants their child to be a 200+ IQ-on-every-metric genius Chad who gets straight A's and is an all-star athlete with the world for their taking. However, realistically speaking, your question is flawed on an even more fundamental level: you never specified the IQ test that is taken

Its really not. You just deflected on it. Its not differentt than asking if you want low or high cholesterol. Having low cholesterol doesn't mean you're healthy, there could be other factors t play, but all things considered its better to have low cholesterol than high. The same goes for an IQ score, its better for it to be high than not. 

>TL;DR: Research says you're wrong.

If it actually did, psychological associations, the USA military, and a host of other entities would stop using them. The truth is IQ matters, can be measured, and has a meaningful tangible.

 

[universallyabhorred]

1) I have extreme difficulty comprehending and following basic instructions even when I'm intensely focused and completely undistracted.
2) Simple tasks such as just typing this post take me much much longer than they should
3) When I was little my parents suspected I was a LITERAL retard
4) Poor performance academically in high school despite a lot of effort. Barely graduated. I honestly shouldn't have even graduated it's just that the school I went to pushed EVERYONE through.
5) I've lost jobs due to incompetence. MINIMUM WAGE jobs.
6) I have extreme difficulty understanding people when they're talking to me.
7) There have been tons of situations where someone was giving a set of instructions to a group of people and EVERYONE understood everything except for me. I was either the only one who needed everything dumbed down or I was the only one who messed up whereas everyone else carried out the task flawlessly and unassisted.





I could go on and on but above everything else is the fact that I am a 30 year old man still doing minimum wage shit.





That's because online I can not only use a spell checker and look up words I don't know, but I also have essentially unlimited time to construct my thoughts into coherent sentences. Writing even a short reply takes me much longer than you probably think it does.

But in real life (and in voice chat and on the phone) these advantages are all stripped from me. Trust me when I say this, but in real time interactions, it's extremely obvious that my IQ is way below average.

There have been times when I have done voice chat with people who had previously only interacted with me via text and many were shocked at how dumb I sounded compared to my writing. Many attempted to rationalize this by assuming that was actually false to justify this disparity. Examples include:

1) "You sound like you're distracted" when the reality was I was intensely focused and they had my undivided attention.

2) "You sound tired" or "you sound like you just woke up" when I was actually wide awake.

3) "You sound like you're drunk/high" when I was completely sober.

4) "Are you trolling? Is this how you actually talk?!" when I wasn't pretending to be stupid or anything like that

Is it possible you have a speech processing disorder and auditory processing difficulties along with slow processing speed? Are you better with understanding things visually like with maps and charts and diagrams? You seem to be insightful about certain things like how people feel or how to behave appropriately in social situations. I am surprised you managed to have so many friends, who kept in contact with you and treated you normally and that you can fit in ghetto areas where a low IQ would probably lead to you getting taken advantage off.

 

[Ryo_Hazuki]

Are you better with understanding things visually like with maps and charts and diagrams?

No. My cognitive abilities are way below average across the board.

You seem to be insightful about certain things like how people feel or how to behave appropriately in social situations.

I guess it's because I'm NT (or at least, NT enough) despite being low IQ. Also might be a generational thing. Maybe because bullying was more serious and there was less leniency on the socially awkward, it put that much pressure on us to learn when we were kids.

Zoomers seem a lot more introverted and anxiety ridden, even if they're NT. Of course I'm on the outside looking in, but that's just my analysis.

 

[sneed (not chuck)]

IQ tests are practically a pseudoscience, and looking at them internationally is even more fallacious. Even if you translate the English IQ tests into other languages, there is no way that some tribesman in the Amazon will be able to complete an analogy that uses purely Western urban elements such as trains and conductors. As such, you have to make the IQ test culturally sensitive to the people which you are testing; at that point, the issue arises of comparing the scores from one test to another as there is no practical way to test the validity of any equivalency you try to create between them. What would need to happen is for each culturally sensitive IQ test to be stratified relative to the culture within which it is administered, meaning that the average IQ of every country would have to be 100 by definition. For a nation to be truly below 100 IQ on average, you would need to actively take people who scored less than 100 in one nation's IQ tests and deport all those people to a new country; however, if you were to re-administer an IQ test within that country in a vacuum, the average IQ would again be 100.

TL;DR This is all hogwash.

cope cope cope

 

[LeFrenchCel]

Dnr the whole thread but tbh the society on which we live in rn is quite retarded

 

[AsiaCel]

 

[Fierycel]

Can you give me some reasons you believe you have a low iq, along with the ways it negatively affects your life? I'm surprised by this since you seem quite articulate and capable of expressing complex ideas and concepts online.

You see, I don't think I understand what you just sadnad

but i;ll tru agaian tomorroww!

 

[Fierycel]

there's this one place called IncelTears or something like that...

Seriously though, I don't think you're low IQ. I struggle with the same problem as you. I think prolonged depression/isolation causes some kind of dementia.

wow that means I'm getting dementia anyday right?