Are stupid people just generally stupid or...

[Saint Frankenstein]

Scientists can't even agree on what intelligence is, I don't really know how they expect to measure it accurately. Personally I do not put a whole lot of stock in IQ.

It really means nothing, except to be misused as an ego boost or an excuse to persecute people by this or that group starting in the last century or so. IQ tests were originally created to help identify special needs children in schools so that they can get more help. Now they've become a hammer to whack your opponents over the head with. I disregard them. They're very outdated, anyway. Even my friend who tested higher than Einstein or whatever thinks they're bunk.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sometimes we mistake someone who is simply uninformed or misinformed as being "stupid".

 

[DavidFirth]

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And I would be extremely suspicious myself if it wasn't for the fact that he's a Christian, and that the graph speaks against Christians.

The IQ is Meaningless.

 

[DavidFirth]

The IQ is Meaningless.

It's a good test for recognizing genius in spatial and mathematical recognition. That's about it, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

was it an accident, somebody else's fault or the stupid person's fault?

All people have flashes of brilliant insight.
Some just have these far less often.


How's that for a really stupid platitude?

 

[metis]

or the stupid person's fault?

I think we're all "stupid" in one area or another, and I really don't think we should be saying "stupid people" because it's a demeaning label of the entire person.

In Judaism and some Christian circles, this kind of terminology is considered inappropriate because it is a form of character assassination.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Well, here's one possible source.

source
​

And here's another:

"Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades.

A new review of 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers.

According to the study entitled, 'The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations', published in the 'Personality and Social Psychology Review', even during early years the more intelligent a child is the more likely it would be to turn away from religion.

One of the studies used in Zuckerman's paper was a life-long analysis of the beliefs of 1,500 gifted children with with IQs over 135.

The study began in 1921 and continues today. Even in extreme old age the subjects had much lower levels of religious belief than the average population."
source

.​

That chart does not say what you think it says. I also need the actual source to examine that study and I have poked on the web some, but then I got bored. However, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, but statistics are not facts.

Also that meta study with the 63 studies is trash, I have reviewed that numerous times. An R value of -.2 to -.25 could very well just be white noise, it hardly counts as "considerably higher" as suggested by @Hubert Farnsworth .

 

[sun rise]

I think we're all "stupid" in one area or another, and I really don't think we should be saying "stupid people" because it's a demeaning label of the entire person.

In Judaism and some Christian circles, this kind of terminology is considered inappropriate because it is a form of character assassination.

There are people who are not intelligent who are kind and loving. And there are those who are intelligent that are so toxic that you want to take a shower after being in their presence.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Sometimes we mistake someone who is simply uninformed or misinformed as being "stupid".

In my past line of work it was necessary for me to interact with people on a daily bases, and I found that people communicate in different ways, even if they speak the same language, and that sometimes these slight difference can also be perceived as being "stupid" when the real problem is trying to hurdle variances in basic communication. That is why listening is considered a skill.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

There are people who are not intelligent who are kind and loving. And there are those who are intelligent that are so toxic that you want to take a shower after being in their presence.

Ya, that goes both ways. I don't think "intelligence" is a fair way to measure that.

 

[metis]

There are people who are not intelligent who are kind and loving. And there are those who are intelligent that are so toxic that you want to take a shower after being in their presence.

Well said, imo.

To go along with you on this, a lot of us here, including myself, love to discuss and sometimes argue theology in some detail, and yet I often have wondered if the old lady sitting in the church who may not even know what the word "theology" means maybe be far smarter than all of us because she has her belief and pretty much just lets everyone else have theirs.

BTW, I am not stereotyping "old ladies", especially because one "old lady" is married to this "old man". or is it "mature man"?

Nah.

 

[Skwim]

It really means nothing, except to be misused as an ego boost or an excuse to persecute people by this or that group starting in the last century or so. IQ tests were originally created to help identify special needs children in schools so that they can get more help. Now they've become a hammer to whack your opponents over the head with. I disregard them. They're very outdated, anyway.

It's easy to see why you'd want to debunk IQ tests; however, the following quotes from psychologist W. Joel Schneider in an article in Scientific American may enlighten you . . . . . . .or not.

"IQ tests, error-ridden as they are, peel back a layer or two of uncertainty about what people are capable of. In the right hands, they work reasonably well. They are approximately right more often than they are grossly in error. If we did not have them, we would fall back on far more fallible means of decision making.

Standardized tests [of which IQ tests are one] provide a sort of anchor point for human judgment. Unaided human reason is typically very bad at calculating relevant probabilities. Without standardized tests, hard decisions about diagnosis and qualification for services will still be made, but they will be made in a more haphazard manner."
source​

Even my friend who tested higher than Einstein or whatever thinks they're bunk.

This is quite amusing. Despite your claim that you disregard IQs, you immediately use them to bolster your contention that IQ's are "very outdated" by citing the fact that your friend's agreement with you has validity because (s)he has a high IQ.

Cute.

.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's easy to see why you'd want to debunk IQ tests; however, the following quotes from psychologist W. Joel Schneider in an article in Scientific American may enlighten you . . . . . . .or not.

"IQ tests, error-ridden as they are, peel back a layer or two of uncertainty about what people are capable of. In the right hands, they work reasonably well. They are approximately right more often than they are grossly in error. If we did not have them, we would fall back on far more fallible means of decision making.

Standardized tests [of which IQ tests are one] provide a sort of anchor point for human judgment. Unaided human reason is typically very bad at calculating relevant probabilities. Without standardized tests, hard decisions about diagnosis and qualification for services will still be made, but they will be made in a more haphazard manner."
source​

IQ tests have already been debunked. I don't have to do anything. Science has no clear definition of intelligence as a concept or a fool proof way of measuring it. Those quotes don't say much of anything except "well, they're not that great but they're the best we have right now", which is a bit sad.

I am against using IQ studies as a means to dehumanize or insult any segment of the population, though. Racists and sexists just love them. They have a neat way of confirming egotistical biases on behalf of wealthy, white, secular Westerners.

 

[oldbadger]

was it an accident, somebody else's fault or the stupid person's fault?

Interesting questions!
Don't worry if you're daft.......!

Some of our country's very best political brains, mostly Oxford, Cambrdge and Durham Grads, decided over the last couple of decades that invading Iraq, and toppling Libya's Gaddafi, and many other such actions........ were brilliant ideas. Fools!

Some of the motoring industry's top brains decided to install micro-processed systems which could deceive motor emission tests! Fools!

Some of our best banking brains figured out that personal-protection-insurance could be stuffed into every kind of loan, attracting money in for no protection outwards........ and got caught. The repayments have crippled our banking institutions. Fools!

In fact all the majoro catastophies, tragedies, wars, corruptions, disasters and horrors that I have witnessed during the last half century were triggered by....... the clever folks!

Oldbadger is proud to have always been truly daft!

 

[Skwim]

That chart does not say what you think it says. I also need the actual source to examine that study and I have poked on the web some, but then I got bored. However, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, but statistics are not facts.

Also that meta study with the 63 studies is trash, I have reviewed that numerous times. An R value of -.2 to -.25 could very well just be white noise, it hardly counts as "considerably higher" as suggested by @Hubert Farnsworth .

I'm not claiming any necessary validity for the chart, but only that it's one possible source for Hubert Farnsworth's contention. No more no less.

.

 

[Skwim]

Also that meta study with the 63 studies is trash, I have reviewed that numerous times. An R value of -.2 to -.25 could very well just be white noise, it hardly counts as "considerably higher" as suggested by @Hubert Farnsworth .

And we should take your word for this because _____________________________________________________ .

.

 

[oldbadger]

IQ tests have already been debunked. I don't have to do anything. Science has no clear definition of intelligence as a concept or a fool proof way of measuring it. Those quotes don't say much of anything except "well, they're not that great but they're the best we have right now", which is a bit sad.

I am against using IQ studies as a means to dehumanize or insult any segment of the population, though. Racists and sexists just love them. They have a neat way of confirming egotistical biases on behalf of wealthy, white, secular Westerners.

Well said!
Intelligence Quotient levels are fast becoming some new kind of class system, and typical human corruption can mess about to adjust results to suit chosen beneficiaries.

Pseudo Institutions produce quasi intellectuals who spout sophisticated rubbish, and nobody seems to want to be a tradesperson or layperson any more.

I reckon that the way to go for the next generation is towards Trades, Skills and Apprenticeships. Semi-Degrees are filling shop shelves already!

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Garbage. You make the same argument that racist eugenicists do. Anything to make yourself feel better, right? Grow up.

There is a genetic component to intelligence. Don't like it? Too bad.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There is a genetic component to intelligence. Don't like it? Too bad.

Proof? First, define "intelligence", Mr. Eugenicist.