Why can't we talk about IQ?

[neurodoc]

---

Members do not see this ad.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-95353.html

I have gotten into many debates with people on SDN about this subject which should not be controversial at all but yet it remains so. Hopefully this article will be enlightening.

Anyone want to comment on the brain MRI images posted on the politico.com article? Not sure what these images have to do with the subject of IQ. They are not images of a normal brain. Looks like some sort of big left hemisphere lesion with mass effect. Looks like a gad-enhanced image. Big stroke, tumor, encephalitis? 😕

 

[SpecterGT260]

So you want to be able to tell me I'm full of ****, but I'm not supposed to defend my beliefs?



Lol, you just posted that butthurt chart like 5 minutes ago and now you're making fun of me. Ok, buddy.

You're either putting words in my mouth or missing the point

 

[The Bunk]

You're either putting words in my mouth or missing the point

Oh, am I?

Do they, though? I seriously doubt you've explored for yourself where this "value" comes from and have taken it at face value and regurgitated it back whenever it seems relevant. I'd ask you to answer that, but we both know the answer will sound very contrived, as if it were from the rubber stamp that slaps the same forced nonsense of the personal statements of every pre-med ever (myself included. we've all been there). "Value" is a subjective concept. I'd urge you to think about why, and how this pertains to human life. I'd argue that the value of a human life is not intrinsic. It isn't some omni-present force that simply "is".

So here you're telling me that you don't think that what I believe could possibly be rational and you assume that anything I say will be nonsensical platitudes. Apparently because that's what all premeds do? (Just because you might do that, it doesn't mean the rest of us are insincere.) And then you condescendingly suggest that I spend some time thinking about it. (Presumably so I can achieve the same "enlightened" opinion you hold. Ha.) I don't know why on earth you would say any of this to me if you don't think I'm full of it.

And then you go on to give me your own unsolicited stance . . .

The value in human life is based only on a globally beneficial social contract. There is always someone else out there who is bigger, smarter, faster, better than you are. Drawing lines in the sand always leaves someone just on either side of the line, and the more lines that get drawn the more and more likely you will end up on the wrong side of it. The "intrinsic value" of human life is just a flashy and overly emotional way of saying that line drawing is simply bad juju.

. . . which I find to be extremely problematic. By this logic, anyone who isn't contributing to society (and how do we measure that anyway?) would be a worthless human. So then is it a crime to murder an old or disabled person who isn't contributing?They don't have intrinsic value in the "globally beneficial social contract," so why not?

I thought I said pretty clearly I didn't want an answer.

Rude. 👎

 

[Wordead]

If you are in favor of making a certain IQ a requirement for citizenship, would you also be in favor of deporting people born in the US with low IQs? They're a drag on the system, right?

What country is going to take all our idiots? If it were possible, I'd be in favor of it. We could just carve out Arizona and ship it off.

And we already do this, though not explicitly via IQ. We do it via profession. the US doesn't just let anybody immigrate. Duh.

 

[deleted550985]

What country is going to take all our idiots? If it were possible, I'd be in favor of it. We could just carve out Arizona and ship it off.

And we already do this, though not explicitly via IQ. We do it via profession. the US doesn't just let anybody immigrate. Duh.

Are you serious? It at least makes some semblance of sense to screen by profession. But that is completely different from screening by IQ, a trait beyond someone's control that by no means guarantees success or failure.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Oh, am I?



So here you're telling me that you don't think that what I believe could possibly be rational and you assume that anything I say will be nonsensical platitudes. Apparently because that's what all premeds do? (Just because you might do that, it doesn't mean the rest of us are insincere.) And then you condescendingly suggest that I spend some time thinking about it. (Presumably so I can achieve the same "enlightened" opinion you hold. Ha.) I don't know why on earth you would say any of this to me if you don't think I'm full of it.

And then you go on to give me your own unsolicited stance . . .



. . . which I find to be extremely problematic. By this logic, anyone who isn't contributing to society (and how do we measure that anyway?) would be a worthless human. So then is it a crime to murder an old or disabled person who isn't contributing?They don't have intrinsic value in the "globally beneficial social contract," so why not?



Rude. 👎

You misinterpreted what I said to a degree I didn't think possible. It would take too long on mobile to explain right now. Just wanted to put this out there.

 

[Wordead]

Are you serious? It at least makes some semblance of sense to screen by profession. But that is completely different from screening by IQ, a trait beyond someone's control that by no means guarantees success or failure.

Screening by IQ is not done because it's a poor indicator of success or intelligence.

My point was that we already are screening for people with "intelligence" and societal value. This is why we let select students immigrate, why we give fast track citizenships to people with desirable professions.

Nobody cares if a factor is "beyond someone's control", by the way.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Oh, am I?

Yes. As evidenced by the rest of your post.

So here you're telling me that you don't think that what I believe could possibly be rational and you assume that anything I say will be nonsensical platitudes. Apparently because that's what all premeds do? (Just because you might do that, it doesn't mean the rest of us are insincere.) And then you condescendingly suggest that I spend some time thinking about it. (Presumably so I can achieve the same "enlightened" opinion you hold. Ha.) I don't know why on earth you would say any of this to me if you don't think I'm full of it.

I said your answer was irrelevant. Not that it would be irrational. I suggested you think about it because your claim of "human life has value" seems to be at the foundation of your position and complaint in this thread and you don't seem to fully understand your own point of view.

And then you go on to give me your own unsolicited stance . . .



. . . which I find to be extremely problematic. By this logic, anyone who isn't contributing to society (and how do we measure that anyway?) would be a worthless human. So then is it a crime to murder an old or disabled person who isn't contributing?They don't have intrinsic value in the "globally beneficial social contract," so why not?

I'm actually shocked at how hard you biffed this interpretation. Your response previously gave the things you value. My whole point was that value is subjective and not universal. Where did anything I say suggest a worth based system? What I said was nothing other than the functional meaning of the golden rule, "do unto others as you'd have done to yourself".

Rude. 👎

You led in by asking me if I wanted an answer. I was pointing out that I clearly stated otherwise. It was right there in that part you conveniently left un boldened.

You're responding a little defensively, dontcha think?

 

[The Bunk]

Yes. As evidenced by the rest of your post.

I said your answer was irrelevant. Not that it would be irrational. I suggested you think about it because your claim of "human life has value" seems to be at the foundation of your position and complaint in this thread and you don't seem to fully understand your own point of view.

Why do I not seem to fully understand my own point of view? You are literally telling me that you think my beliefs are confused and based on nothing at all, but you don't consider that to be an accusation of irrationality? Ooookay . . .

I'm actually shocked at how hard you biffed this interpretation. Your response previously gave the things you value. My whole point was that value is subjective and not universal. Where did anything I say suggest a worth based system? What I said was nothing other than the functional meaning of the golden rule, "do unto others as you'd have done to yourself".

Ok, I did misread what you wrote. I've been responding to all of this stuff in the middle of studying for a final and I think I was conflating you and Mornhavon. Sorry!

That said, I don't see where your point fits in with this whole IQ/immigration discussion. Are you just being argumentative? I mean, sure, value is subjective and my beliefs about value are my own. But America is founded on a philosophy that all humans have intrinsic value, so I think that's very relevant to the policy suggestions in Richwine's article.

You led in by asking me if I wanted an answer. I was pointing out that I clearly stated otherwise. It was right there in that part you conveniently left un boldened.

Yeah, you're right that you said you weren't asking me for an answer. But you were also rude. 👎

You're responding a little defensively, dontcha think?

I suppose you're right.

 

[mehc012]

Do they, though? I seriously doubt you've explored for yourself where this "value" comes from and have taken it at face value and regurgitated it back whenever it seems relevant. I'd ask you to answer that, but we both know the answer will sound very contrived, as if it were from the rubber stamp that slaps the same forced nonsense of the personal statements of every pre-med ever (myself included. we've all been there). "Value" is a subjective concept. I'd urge you to think about why, and how this pertains to human life. I'd argue that the value of a human life is not intrinsic. It isn't some omni-present force that simply "is".

The value in human life is based only on a globally beneficial social contract. There is always someone else out there who is bigger, smarter, faster, better than you are. Drawing lines in the sand always leaves someone just on either side of the line, and the more lines that get drawn the more and more likely you will end up on the wrong side of it. The "intrinsic value" of human life is just a flashy and overly emotional way of saying that line drawing is simply bad juju.

Didn't you...didn't you kind of answer your own question right here? Other than basic survival needs, everything that has value has value because we ascribe it to it or make a social contract emphasizing it. I just don't understand how you can question whether a human life has value in the same post where you explicitly state why it has that value!

Global social contract that values something? That thing now has value.
Globally beneficial social contract? Valuing that thing is beneficial to most humans, and therefore likely had some intrinsic value before the contract was made.
...after all, by valuing human life, we make it less likely that humans will be killed by humans, which in turn diminishes the likelihood that we will die, which is really the most valuable thing to an individual human, and to humans as a species.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Didn't you...didn't you kind of answer your own question right here? Other than basic survival needs, everything that has value has value because we ascribe it to it or make a social contract emphasizing it. I just don't understand how you can question whether a human life has value in the same post where you explicitly state why it has that value!

Global social contract that values something? That thing now has value.
Globally beneficial social contract? Valuing that thing is beneficial to most humans, and therefore likely had some intrinsic value before the contract was made.
...after all, by valuing human life, we make it less likely that humans will be killed by humans, which in turn diminishes the likelihood that we will die, which is really the most valuable thing to an individual human, and to humans as a species.

Yes I did. There's no contradiction in telling someone you don't need something and then doing it yourself. My point was that any description is going to be subjective and personal and therefore somewhat meaningless as an argument.

Your second part is exactly what I was saying. All value is assigned and not intrinsic. We assign value to life because it is beneficial to our survival and well being. But turning around and using that "value" to argue something like immigration becomes circular logic and is nonsensical.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Why do I not seem to fully understand my own point of view? You are literally telling me that you think my beliefs are confused and based on nothing at all, but you don't consider that to be an accusation of irrationality? Ooookay . . .

I was basically trying to get at why you cite the value of human life in this discussion. It is basically a nonsensical trump card similar to "well why do you hate puppies?". If you were forced to defend your stance and the way you apply it to this discission you'd inevitably fall back into circular reasoning. Or at least I can't think of a way this argument fits that isn't built on such logic.

Ok, I did misread what you wrote. I've been responding to all of this stuff in the middle of studying for a final and I think I was conflating you and Mornhavon. Sorry!

That said, I don't see where your point fits in with this whole IQ/immigration discussion. Are you just being argumentative? I mean, sure, value is subjective and my beliefs about value are my own. But America is founded on a philosophy that all humans have intrinsic value, so I think that's very relevant to the policy suggestions in Richwine's article.



Yeah, you're right that you said you weren't asking me for an answer. But you were also rude. 👎



I suppose you're right.

I have never denied being rude. I only denied that my comment was unprompted (I'm using a very literal interpretation of that word. Not looking to argue semantics) 😀

 

[deleted550985]

Screening by IQ is not done because it's a poor indicator of success or intelligence.

My point was that we already are screening for people with "intelligence" and societal value. This is why we let select students immigrate, why we give fast track citizenships to people with desirable professions.

Nobody cares if a factor is "beyond someone's control", by the way.

Not to nitpick, but you JUST said that you'd be in favor of deporting people based on IQ. That, as you just pointed out, is a terrible idea because its a "poor indicator of success or intelligence".

So do we both disagree with the author of the article?

 

[mehc012]

Yes I did. There's no contradiction in telling someone you don't need something and then doing it yourself. My point was that any description is going to be subjective and personal and therefore somewhat meaningless as an argument.

Your second part is exactly what I was saying. All value is assigned and not intrinsic. We assign value to life because it is beneficial to our survival and well being. But turning around and using that "value" to argue something like immigration becomes circular logic and is nonsensical.

Hmmm...don't see the circularness or the nonsensicality there.

Valuing human life is beneficial to us
If we value each human life, each immigrant is valued
The benefit of being more selective on immigration < The benefit of continuing to value each human life
I admit that this part isn't as clearcut, but I 100% believe that 'only letting smart people in' would be a terrible trade-off for 'now it is OK to kill each other', so I'm going to go with this inequality

Now, this isn't my particular stance, so I'm not really going to go down a long path of arguing it, I just don't think that it's as circular or nonsensical as you claim. If you're going to argue against it, you should be arguing some OTHER point besides 'value is not intrinsic', because that doesn't really help your case. Argue that, even if all human life is valued, some should be more valued, or something.

 

[Wordead]

Not to nitpick, but you JUST said that you'd be in favor of deporting people based on IQ. That, as you just pointed out, is a terrible idea because its a "poor indicator of success or intelligence".

So do we both disagree with the author of the article?

It was a facetious statement, but in all seriousness, if there were a way to get rid of a large chunk of idiots I would be in favor of that. I do NOT think IQ would be the way to do it.

Yes, I also disagree with the author. I was just saying that it's pure fantasy to think that there are no differences in intelligence between races when they are not equal in anything.

 

[The Bunk]

I was basically trying to get at why you cite the value of human life in this discussion. It is basically a nonsensical trump card similar to "well why do you hate puppies?". If you were forced to defend your stance and the way you apply it to this discission you'd inevitably fall back into circular reasoning. Or at least I can't think of a way this argument fits that isn't built on such logic.

Nah, I think you're wrong. We were talking about changing United States immigration policy based on IQ scores. But like I said, the philosophy of this country is that all people should be equal and have inherent value. Why is it nonsensical to bring that up?

I have never denied being rude. I only denied that my comment was unprompted (I'm using a very literal interpretation of that word. Not looking to argue semantics) 😀

I didn't say that your comment was unprompted, either. I only called you out on being unfair and rude.

 

[deleted303591]

I cannot believe this is a three page thread on SDN.

I do not know what this has to do with being pre-med.

This is ridiculous.

 

[The Bunk]

I cannot believe this is a three page thread on SDN.

I do not know what this has to do with being pre-med.

This is ridiculous.

The OP is basically a troll trying to make some silly political point. People like to debate.

 

[deleted550985]

I cannot believe this is a three page thread on SDN.

I do not know what this has to do with being pre-med.

This is ridiculous.

SDN even has a sociopolitical forum in the wolfs den. I'm surprised the mods don't move more threads there.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Hmmm...don't see the circularness or the nonsensicality there.

Valuing human life is beneficial to us
If we value each human life, each immigrant is valued
The benefit of being more selective on immigration < The benefit of continuing to value each human life
I admit that this part isn't as clearcut, but I 100% believe that 'only letting smart people in' would be a terrible trade-off for 'now it is OK to kill each other', so I'm going to go with this inequality

Now, this isn't my particular stance, so I'm not really going to go down a long path of arguing it, I just don't think that it's as circular or nonsensical as you claim. If you're going to argue against it, you should be arguing some OTHER point besides 'value is not intrinsic', because that doesn't really help your case. Argue that, even if all human life is valued, some should be more valued, or something.

Start with "each human life has value", and then pretend there is a small child that asks you "why?". After each answer, the little brat asks again. Eventually you will find where the logic gets circular.

I am under no circumstances siding with the guy who thinks we should put IQ requirements on immigration. That's ridiculous. I just fail to see how it would be an afront to the concept of the "value of life" to do so. The line seems to be getting blurred here between "the value of a human life" and "one's value to society". Two very very different concepts. Very different...

Nah, I think you're wrong. We were talking about changing United States immigration policy based on IQ scores. But like I said, the philosophy of this country is that all people should be equal and have inherent value. Why is it nonsensical to bring that up?



I didn't say that your comment was unprompted, either. I only called you out on being unfair and rude.

See above. If I have a job opening I will interview people for it using a rubric of some skill set I consider to be useful for the job. I will basically "assess their value to my organization". There will be people I don't take. Did I somehow deem that their lives are of no value? No... That's why this argument of "every human life has value" just seems so out of place in the context of an immigration argument. "value of a life" and "value to a specific group/organization" are two very different things. The other guy was arguing that people with lower IQs are of lower value to this society, i.e. unhelpful. He was not arguing that their lives are of little value. That starts to draw irrational comparisons between judging one's usefulness and one's worthiness of remaining alive (or deservingness of death), which a couple of you have already pointed out in your arguments. The fact that such points are currently on the table already demonstrates an alarming level of looseness with interpretation of what is being said.

And for the record, it is exceedingly rare that I am rude unintentionally. It isn't exactly necessary to make me aware of it.

 

[The Bunk]

Start with "each human life has value", and then pretend there is a small child that asks you "why?". After each answer, the little brat asks again. Eventually you will find where the logic gets circular.

You can do that with everything, though.

I am under no circumstances siding with the guy who thinks we should put IQ requirements on immigration. That's ridiculous. I just fail to see how it would be an afront to the concept of the "value of life" to do so. The line seems to be getting blurred here between "the value of a human life" and "one's value to society". Two very very different concepts. Very different...

See above. If I have a job opening I will interview people for it using a rubric of some skill set I consider to be useful for the job. I will basically "assess their value to my organization". There will be people I don't take. Did I somehow deem that their lives are of no value? No... That's why this argument of "every human life has value" just seems so out of place in the context of an immigration argument. "value of a life" and "value to a specific group/organization" are two very different things. The other guy was arguing that people with lower IQs are of lower value to this society, i.e. unhelpful. He was not arguing that their lives are of little value. That starts to draw irrational comparisons between judging one's usefulness and one's worthiness of remaining alive (or deservingness of death), which a couple of you have already pointed out in your arguments. The fact that such points are currently on the table already demonstrates an alarming level of looseness with interpretation of what is being said.

The thing is that it's not a job interview. You mention that the line between "value of human life" and "value to society" is "getting blurred" as if there was actually some clear line between those things in reality. There's not, and that's why this is so controversial. Who is the judge of a person's value to society? You can try to quantify it with something like net worth or IQ, but that's not going to be accurate. Maybe a person isn't as cognitively strong as someone else, but they're extremely empathetic or athletic or artistic. And even if they aren't a benefit to society at large, they might be extremely valuable to their friends and family. It's too complex to the point of being unknowable. Which is why I think you have to bring it all back to the level of respecting individual human worth. When you say, as an entire society, "Oh, this person doesn't have X quality, so they're no good to us," that devalues that person.

And for the record, it is exceedingly rare that I am rude unintentionally. It isn't exactly necessary to make me aware of it.

It seemed intentional to me. You could always just say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude," rather than try to make it my fault.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You can do that with everything, though.



The thing is that it's not a job interview. You mention that the line between "value of human life" and "value to society" is "getting blurred" as if there was actually some clear line between those things in reality. There's not, and that's why this is so controversial. Who is the judge of a person's value to society? You can try to quantify it with something like net worth or IQ, but that's not going to be accurate. Maybe a person isn't as cognitively strong as someone else, but they're extremely empathetic or athletic or artistic. And even if they aren't a benefit to society at large, they might be extremely valuable to their friends and family. It's too complex to the point of being unknowable. Which is why I think you have to bring it all back to the level of respecting individual human worth. When you say, as an entire society, "Oh, this person doesn't have X quality, so they're no good to us," that devalues that person.

You're making the assumption that something that isn't deemed valuable is going to be destroyed. That isn't a valid assumption. That is why tying one's value to another and live's value together is so inappropriate. That's why I told you to think it through earlier. The two concepts aren't linked until you make it that way.

you also seem to have completely lost my position on here.... the bold part is a near quote of my earlier posts. I'm not arguing your position. I'm arguing your reasoning for having the position.

It seemed intentional to me. You could always just say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude," rather than try to make it my fault.

You aren't reading.... I said pretty clearly that it was intentional 👍

 

[The Bunk]

You're making the assumption that something that isn't deemed valuable is going to be destroyed. That isn't a valid assumption. That is why tying one's value to another and live's value together is so inappropriate. That's why I told you to think it through earlier. The two concepts aren't linked until you make it that way.

No, I'm not. I'm making the assumption that someone who isn't deemed valuable is going to be systematically discriminated against and denied entry into the US. Because that's basically what's being suggested in the article.

you also seem to have completely lost my position on here.... the bold part is a near quote of my earlier posts. I'm not arguing your position. I'm arguing your reasoning for having the position.

I'm arguing for my position against Richwine because you insist on picking at my reasoning. Do you not understand what you're doing here? I wasn't arguing with you at all until you confronted me with your condescending attack on my "intrinsic value" statement. So I'm defending the validity of that statement in the context of this thread.

But now we're arguing about what we're arguing about and I am over it. 😴

You aren't reading.... I said pretty clearly that it was intentional 👍

Oh, and here I was thinking you were uncomfortable with being called rude. Your idea of "pretty clear" is kinda messed up. You are not a clear writer.

 

[SpecterGT260]

"And for the record, it is exceedingly rare that I am rude unintentionally. It isn't exactly necessary to make me aware of it."

How else could you interpret this statement?

 

[The Bunk]

"And for the record, it is exceedingly rare that I am rude unintentionally. It isn't exactly necessary to make me aware of it."

How else could you interpret this statement?

I interpreted it like this:

"It is exceedingly rare that I am rude unintentionally." = I don't make a habit of deliberately insulting people, but every now and then I am accidentally rude.

"It isn't exactly necessary to make me aware of it." = It wasn't on purpose, so it was unnecessarily critical of you to berate me for it several times.

See, I made the mistake of assuming that most people value being polite and aren't deliberately trying to be rude to others just because they think they have superior reasoning skills. How stupid of me! This is the internet, after all. Now I see what you're saying. You meant: "I am being rude on purpose, so you don't have to tell me how rude I am." You just took the awkward, roundabout way of saying it.

 

[freakingoutabit]

 

[The Bunk]

Hahaha. I can't believe you find this entertaining. I'm so bored with it at this point. But I guess this is the first day in months where I haven't had any school work to do, so I'm just kinda running on autopilot. I don't know what to do with myself!

 

[SpecterGT260]

I interpreted it like this:

"It is exceedingly rare that I am rude unintentionally." = I don't make a habit of deliberately insulting people, but every now and then I am accidentally rude.

"It isn't exactly necessary to make me aware of it." = It wasn't on purpose, so it was unnecessarily critical of you to berate me for it several times.

See, I made the mistake of assuming that most people value being polite and aren't deliberately trying to be rude to others just because they think they have superior reasoning skills. How stupid of me! This is the internet, after all. Now I see what you're saying. You meant: "I am being rude on purpose, so you don't have to tell me how rude I am." You just took the awkward, roundabout way of saying it.

It says that when I'm rude I do so intentionally, so a "call out" is somewhat pointless. I also said that I said so clearly. Not "directly". There is a difference. Your reading is off broski 😉

 

[freakingoutabit]

Hahaha. I can't believe you find this entertaining. I'm so bored with it at this point. But I guess this is the first day in months where I haven't had any school work to do, so I'm just kinda running on autopilot. I don't know what to do with myself!

I enjoy the thrust and parry of a heated debate.

 

[The Bunk]

It says that when I'm rude I do so intentionally, so a "call out" is somewhat pointless. I also said that I said so clearly. Not "directly". There is a difference. Your reading is off broski 😉

Ooh, girl! You don't seem to understand. Good, clear writing is usually direct. In this case, it was neither clear nor direct. It was possible to interpret it in multiple ways because you insisted on using convoluted structure. That happens a lot when writers try to be too clever.

 

[The Bunk]

I enjoy the thrust and parry of a heated debate.

You're giving it way too much credit. This is more of slap fight.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Ooh, girl! You don't seem to understand. Good, clear writing is usually direct. In this case, it was neither clear nor direct. It was possible to interpret it in multiple ways because you insisted on using convoluted structure. That happens a lot when writers try to be too clever.

I don't hold myself responsible for your inability to follow. There is only one way that can reasonably be interpreted. That you did it wrong is not my fault. I'll send the next one in crayon if that would help.

You could go back and look over how this went down. I just took issue with a point you made. Rather than hold your hand through it I made a few suggestions which you took as condescending and became a whiny little baby over. So my next response was knowingly rude. You were half paying attention and thought it pertinent to call me out, to which I said "i am rarely rude unintentionally". Since I was, in fact, rude... It must have been intentional. You admit that you assumed a good many things in reading my post. Its right there in one of your replies.

See, I made the mistake of assuming that most people value being polite and aren't deliberately trying to be rude to others

Had you read plainly instead of attaching all of your own incorrect inference, there is really 1 and only 1 way the statement can be read. And to think.... this all started with unnecessary butthurt over the definition of "value" 😉

 

[Mornhavon]

.

 

[487806]

While you guys were arguing over grammar and punctuation, the *******es of your cohort popped out TWO kids.


Watch idiocracy.

I'm too lazy to.intervene, but i'm just here to support Specter for having the patience in arguing with premeds.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I'm too lazy to.intervene, but i'm just here to support Specter for having the patience in arguing with premeds.

Well shucks 😀

But I'm done. He's just being stubborn now (I hope.... the alternative is concerning). It went from interesting to just sad. I'm off to get drinks and Mexican and enjoy what's left of my outpatient schedule.

 

[The Bunk]

I don't hold myself responsible for your inability to follow. There is only one way that can reasonably be interpreted. That you did it wrong is not my fault. I'll send the next one in crayon if that would help.

Listen lady, it is the writer's responsibility to make themselves understood. it was possible to interpret what you said in more than one way. Your syntax was unclear, so it was harder to pick up on the pragmatics. You said, "It isn't exactly necessary to make me aware of it." What is "it"? That's not clear writing. You were talking about being unintentionally rude in the previous sentence. So it's possible that you meant, "it isn't exactly necessary to make me aware of [being unintentionally rude.]" Indirect writing doesn't make you seem smarter, so don't even bother with it. Seriously. Just try saying, "It is exceedingly rare that I am rude unintentionally," out loud. It sounds so pretentious and jumbled.

Also, stop referring to me as "he" and "broski." You're a woman. You should know that's insulting.

 

[Temperature101]

I read the article and all author was saying were: Asians are smarter, Caucasians are smart, Hispanics are dumb and African Americans are dumber... What a BS article!👎

 

[SpecterGT260]

Listen lady, it is the writer's responsibility to make themselves understood. it was possible to interpret what you said in more than one way. Your syntax was unclear, so it was harder to pick up on the pragmatics. You said, "It isn't exactly necessary to make me aware of it." What is "it"? That's not clear writing. You were talking about being unintentionally rude in the previous sentence. So it's possible that you meant, "it isn't exactly necessary to make me aware of [being unintentionally rude.]" Indirect writing doesn't make you seem smarter, so don't even bother with it. Seriously. Just try saying, "It is exceedingly rare that I am rude unintentionally," out loud. It sounds so pretentious and jumbled.

Also, stop referring to me as "he" and "broski." You're a woman. You should know that's insulting.

The first part could only have a single interpretation. So... not a dude, eh? That makes so much more sense. I was wondering where all of the illogical stubbornness was coming from. 👍

but... no. I am under no obligation to you of any kind. You say it is my job to make myself understood? I say I did so just fine. I just never cared whether or not you caught it all. I stopped giving a damn what other people thought somewhere in the neighborhood of highschool. If you wanna play ball here try to keep up and try to keep your ridiculous assumptions out of your interpretation if you hope to make half-reasonable points. Otherwise continue to be wrong and whine about it as if its my fault that you cant keep up.

btw the tacos were delicious. I'm literally done now. Go ahead and have your last word, dude.

 

[ferning]

Because IQ tests lack assessment of other aspects of intelligence. Emotional, social, creative, etc

And what about the confounders of the higher incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome? And Other sequela of teratogenic, early development, and traumatic insults. Brain does most of its growing in first 2 years of life and nutritional deficits may adversely affect

If you believe a high IQ is indicative of any sort of signficant genius or success your perspective on the world is grade school level immature

Einstein was like 140, which at least half my class beats probably. Plenty of people have higher, but his genius is in his creativity and critical thinking which our eductional system doesnt reward

 

[Mr Avante]

Jason Richwine's dissertation: "IQ and Immigration policy."

Then there is this excerpt taken from said dissertation:

No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.

😕😡😕😡😕

After voting against such dissertation, some clowns decided it is not in their power to decide discrimination and immigration policy because after all, Harvard is just a maximal house of studies.

Jason, I will not sleep until I see the committee strip you from your degree.

/end of rant

 

[BlueLabel]

Well this is one of the dumber threads lately. Someone give me the cliff notes of the debate, i.e. who won?

 

[mehc012]

Listen lady, it is the writer's responsibility to make themselves understood. it was possible to interpret what you said in more than one way. Your syntax was unclear, so it was harder to pick up on the pragmatics. You said, "It isn't exactly necessary to make me aware of it." What is "it"? That's not clear writing. You were talking about being unintentionally rude in the previous sentence. So it's possible that you meant, "it isn't exactly necessary to make me aware of [being unintentionally rude.]" Indirect writing doesn't make you seem smarter, so don't even bother with it. Seriously. Just try saying, "It is exceedingly rare that I am rude unintentionally," out loud. It sounds so pretentious and jumbled.

Also, stop referring to me as "he" and "broski." You're a woman. You should know that's insulting.

No, just...no.

The intent was clear enough, you missed it, move on.

As for the "he" thing...get over it. All it means is that this is the Internet and no one really knows, or cares, what you look like in real life. Sentences require pronouns occasionally, and unless you bother to dig through past posts or profiles (hint: no one cares enough to), you've often got to just pick one and stick it in there.

 

[BlueLabel]

No, just...no.

The intent was clear enough, you missed it, move on.

As for the "he" thing...get over it. All it means is that this is the Internet and no one really knows, or cares, what you look like in real life. Sentences require pronouns occasionally, and unless you bother to dig through past posts or profiles (hint: no one cares enough to), you've often got to just pick one and stick it in there.

Aren't you a girl too? Maybe I'm thinking of someone else. My bad if so.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Well this is one of the dumber threads lately. Someone give me the cliff notes of the debate, i.e. who won?

Don't you have a girlfriend? The man never wins such arguments. Trivialities such as being "right" or "correct" have very little bearing here

 

[mehc012]

Aren't you a girl too? Maybe I'm thinking of someone else. My bad if so.

Yup...I only brought it up in the social thread, though, because it was relevant to the discussion at hand. (I then ended up discussing it for way too long because apparently I know too much about motorcycles and car repair to be a chick, but whatever). I see no reason to take offense at being called "he" when people are pretty much required to guess on these things, at least at first.

 

[The Bunk]

Einstein was like 140, which at least half my class beats probably. Plenty of people have higher, but his genius is in his creativity and critical thinking which our eductional system doesnt reward

If lots of people in your classes are telling you their IQs are over 140, then I would seriously doubt that they took legit IQ tests.

 

[BlueLabel]

Yup...I only brought it up in the social thread, though, because it was relevant to the discussion at hand. (I then ended up discussing it for way too long because apparently I know too much about motorcycles and car repair to be a chick, but whatever). I see no reason to take offense at being called "he" when people are pretty much required to guess on these things, at least at first.

That's right, I remember now.

Eventually I'm going to make a list of all SDN girls with my estimate of their attractiveness based on irrelevant criteria. That should clear up the confusion.

 

[The Bunk]

Yup...I only brought it up in the social thread, though, because it was relevant to the discussion at hand. (I then ended up discussing it for way too long because apparently I know too much about motorcycles and car repair to be a chick, but whatever). I see no reason to take offense at being called "he" when people are pretty much required to guess on these things, at least at first.

I wasn't actually taking offense. I was just teasing him a little.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Yup...I only brought it up in the social thread, though, because it was relevant to the discussion at hand. (I then ended up discussing it for way too long because apparently I know too much about motorcycles and car repair to be a chick, but whatever). I see no reason to take offense at being called "he" when people are pretty much required to guess on these things, at least at first.

I appreciate this attitude. People who run on the assumption that I or anyone else are supposed to just know intimate details about you or anyone else are honestly delusional and self centered. I suppose if the brief and momentary initial confusion was too unbearable, one could always get an overly girly avatar and put something in her sig that is a strange combination of advertising and stand-off-ish about being a female.... but nobody likes those people 😀

 

[SpecterGT260]

That's right, I remember now.

Eventually I'm going to make a list of all SDN girls with my estimate of their attractiveness based on irrelevant criteria. That should clear up the confusion.