When was the last time you (or anyone you know) saw a medical doctor who's IQ was below 125?
How exactly do you determine this? Did you subject your doctors to the pretty much meaningless IQ test? How exactly are you making your determination? on what frame of reference? Are are you just spouting hyperbole?
Med school is pretty much one long IQ test and the ones that make it out the other side with MD in hand are the ones who, if given an IQ test, would typically place no lower than a score of 125.
In other words, you have no evidence, you're just assuming med school is hard and thus doctors must be really smart.
No, we don't have half the country moving from farms to the city looking for work, we've got half the country moving from those good factory jobs to ????
Why to service jobs of course! And, by the way, would you like fries with that? :)
The good factory jobs are either:
Overseas or being done by robotics and other automation...
or both overseas and highly automated. :)
Yes. And back then they were moving from their independent farming lives to hellish sweatshop work. As I said before, those "good factory jobs" were only good after generations of union struggles. All of which were opposed by the same basic argument: "You're lucky to have work at all. We'll all go out of business if we paid you enough to live on." Which, stripped of the details, is the same as todays. We know the owners were lying then, since they didn't all go out of business, in fact the economy boomed when people were paid well. But of course those saying the same things today must be right.
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The details are different, but the outline is the same. The argument back in the day would be that we're able to grow enough food with far less people, so what are all those people going to do? The answer to that is now obvious, but it wasn't then.
Why yes it is. Very obvious. Americans now being the fattest people on Earth.
Good to see you agree.
I assume you agree with my actual point as well? Since the question wasn't "Can we grow enough food", but "What are the people who grew all the food going to do?" Which is the same as the question "With productivity so much higher, what are all the people going to do now?"
That Americans are fat now is only loosely related.
One answer back then was the 40 hour work week - basically, they're going to work less, so that more people have a chance to work.
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I agree that simply giving everyone college degrees won't fix the problem, but I'm more disturbed that you seem to think the problem is fundamentally unfixable. That the mass of people are going to live in poverty, even if they have cheap consumer goods.
I don't want it that way but I've also got 5,000 years of recorded human history telling me the way it always will be.
You know something about humanity that I've not read?
I know that it trends that way, but I know that's because of human greed, not because of fundamental economics. I know the only times in history it hasn't been true is when enough people have fought to make it so. I know that we're more prosperous now than we've ever been, in terms of overall production and that there is no hard reason we can't divide that prosperity more evenly.
I also know it won't just happen on its own, because it never has.
Education isn't a panacea, but it's one helping step.
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And you're still assuming that those average or below kids, are concentrated among the poor and that our current education system does a good job of allotting higher ed to the smart, rather than by wealth and social class.
We tend to reward the outliers on the top end regardless of upbringing. The current president being a really good case in point.
Are the poor less intelligent and that's why they're poor? You asked.
In most cases, no. I'm guessing that the IQ spread is about the same as it is among the non-poor. I'm excepting the mentally ill homeless types by the way.
You're right that the smartest and most driven of the poor tend to make it out, but you're arguing that there won't be any benefit to more access to higher ed. All of those who aren't quite smart enough or driven enough to overcome the obstacles that poverty places in the way, but who would do just as well or better than the upper or middle class kids who do get the chance. Those are the ones you're dismissing.
When was the last time you (or anyone you know) saw a medical doctor who's IQ was below 125?
How exactly do you determine this? Did you subject your doctors to the pretty much meaningless IQ test? How exactly are you making your determination? on what frame of reference? Are are you just spouting hyperbole?
Med school is pretty much one long IQ test and the ones that make it out the other side with MD in hand are the ones who, if given an IQ test, would typically place no lower than a score of 125.
Since we were having such fun Wednesday correcting assertions about the ancient world, such as that emperors traveled in cess-filled wheelhouses, had no access to chilled food in the summer, and lived without air conditioning, I decided to check with Google about one of the modern ones.
Now there was a real man. A man who spent alot of time around other men, in various stages of dress, and was okay with it. Hot sweaty men, relaxing after a battle, together. A man other men were eager to get behind. A political lightning rod, and an unflagging sentinel waiting for an opportunity to plunge headlong into the dark abyss of freedom.
I bet he'd support a proposal that let men come together... for training.
... Meh. I know I'd benefit from this... Maybe. I got pulled out of high school to help with my ailing mother (Calistria rest her soul), then had to help take care of my great grandfather (whom also is now ash in an urn). Couple with some family injuries, and... Well, let's just say I got screwed out of an education. And with prices what they are these days, and every job turning me down since I never managed to get a diploma or GED... I can't even afford the $250 to snag myself a GED.
So, yeah. I'm all for free higher education. I'd also like to see government aid for people trying to get a GED. Even if it's just a friggen loan. No offline friends, no real family left to speak of (that don't fritter their social security away on gambling and cigarettes, then turn around and call ME a bum for not having a job, despite constant applications, calling, and checking in for the past 6 years), every city, county, state, and school official I've contacted have NO clue where I can manage some help. And, I doubt I can crowdfund it.
Count me, and likely everyone else struggling to pay for a worthless slip of paper just so we can get our foot in the door, among those who are all for this.
Now there was a real man. A man who spent alot of time around other men, in various stages of dress, and was okay with it. Hot sweaty men, relaxing after a battle, together. A man other men were eager to get behind. A political lightning rod, and an unflagging sentinel waiting for an opportunity to plunge headlong into the dark abyss of freedom.
I bet he'd support a proposal that let men come together... for training.
You assume they're all hers. I can't tell you how many ugly fights the ladies from my daycare got into with idiotic onlookers when taking us out on school trips.
I assume lots of things everyday. Given that second guessing everything would take up at least half of everyday, that's not a feasible option. Neither is asking "rude" questions to verify my assumptions.
If she was babysitting someone else's kids, then I'll need to question the IQ of those parents if they would send their kids to her for day"care". o_O
@thejeff and others:
No, I'm talking the testing in general to get to Med School and then loads more to actually get through it with degree in hand.
Things like SAT, ACT, GRE, MCAT, GMAT, LSAT... are all different versions of the classic IQ test, i.e. WAIS/WISC or the Stanford-Binet.
As to greater automation and leisure time being compensated for with a shorter work week but same salary.
thejeff wrote:
One answer back then was the 40 hour work week - basically, they're going to work less, so that more people have a chance to work.
That's a great solution but only if the pie is getting bigger. Nothing I know and nothing I've seen on this thread is telling me the pie is getting bigger. And more important to my argument is that as energy (mainly oil) becomes more expensive, the pie is actually shrinking.
thejeff wrote:
I know that it trends that way, but I know that's because of human greed, not because of fundamental economics.
One last obvious point - Human greed is fundamental to economics.
@Coriat:
If you take that graph at face value then there are no doctors (or anyone else) with an IQ above about 133.
...so I was off by 5 IQ points, my point still stands as...
You'll also note that MDs have the tightest curve and highest skew shown. Which emphatically supports my main point that Med School is one long IQ test.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
And with prices what they are these days, and every job turning me down since I never managed to get a diploma or GED... I can't even afford the $250 to snag myself a GED.
Kickstarter man. You'd raise $250 in no time. Just devote your first post-GED raise to some charitable cause.
As to greater automation and leisure time being compensated for with a shorter work week but same salary.
thejeff wrote:
One answer back then was the 40 hour work week - basically, they're going to work less, so that more people have a chance to work.
That's a great solution but only if the pie is getting bigger. Nothing I know and nothing I've seen on this thread is telling me the pie is getting bigger. And more important to my argument is that as energy (mainly oil) becomes more expensive, the pie is actually shrinking.
I'm not sure what you're looking at. Productivity is growing by every measure. Total world output is increasing. Even faster than population.
The problem is that a greater and greater percentage of it is being captured by a a very small minority.
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I know that it trends that way, but I know that's because of human greed, not because of fundamental economics.
One last obvious point - Human greed is fundamental to economics.
But we've done best for most people when we pushed back against that. The "greed is good" eighties were when the middle class starting losing ground.
I like the shorter work week but same salary to get more wealth back in the hands of more blue collar workers but...
The economic playing field is now global and global without tariffs or at least greatly reduced tariffs compared to the time period of the rise of the unions.
The tipping point in the American economy seems to have started in the 1970's, not the "greed is good 80's". That coincides with the end of cheap oil.
If things are so much more productive today, and not just per capita but gross output growing faster than gross population, then what is it the 1% (or top 1/4 of 1%, depending on which analyst you listen to) are actually hoarding? The modern economy depends on cash flow, so if money isn't flowing then even the rich aren't getting richer.
My final thought is this, regarding the OP:
While I still believe that free college will have no net effect, I would be much happier with spending tax money that way than wasting 100x that much trying to turn Afghanistan or Iraq into something the people don't want any part of.
And I don't mean the wars we fought there and will no doubt fight there again. I mean the way the UN and big NGOs are trying to build these countries up. The few people that catch on to what we try to teach them quickly make a life for themselves somewhere out of their own country. And who can blame them. If we aren't prepared to stay there en mass and en force for about 2.5 generations, then anything we do is as useful as teaching them to smoke crack.
You assume they're all hers. I can't tell you how many ugly fights the ladies from my daycare got into with idiotic onlookers when taking us out on school trips.
I assume lots of things everyday. Given that second guessing everything would take up at least half of everyday, that's not a feasible option. Neither is asking "rude" questions to verify my assumptions.
If she was babysitting someone else's kids, then I'll need to question the IQ of those parents if they would send their kids to her for day"care". o_O
@thejeff and others:
No, I'm talking the testing in general to get to Med School and then loads more to actually get through it with degree in hand.
Things like SAT, ACT, GRE, MCAT, GMAT, LSAT... are all different versions of the classic IQ test, i.e. WAIS/WISC or the Stanford-Binet.
As to greater automation and leisure time being compensated for with a shorter work week but same salary.
thejeff wrote:
One answer back then was the 40 hour work week - basically, they're going to work less, so that more people have a chance to work.
That's a great solution but only if the pie is getting bigger. Nothing I know and nothing I've seen on this thread is telling me the pie is getting bigger. And more important to my argument is that as energy (mainly oil) becomes more expensive, the pie is actually shrinking.
thejeff wrote:
I know that it trends that way, but I know that's because of human greed, not because of fundamental economics.
One last obvious point - Human greed is fundamental to economics.
@Coriat:
If you take that graph at face value then there are no doctors (or anyone else) with an IQ above about 133.
...so I was off by 5 IQ points, my point still stands as...
You'll also note that MDs have the tightest curve and highest skew shown. Which emphatically supports my main point that Med School is one long IQ test.
"Artemis... [/QUOTE wrote:
but not that there are no doctors with an IQ below the number you stated. You must have sinewy thews with all the goalpost moving you do.
I like the shorter work week but same salary to get more wealth back in the hands of more blue collar workers but...
The economic playing field is now global and global without tariffs or at least greatly reduced tariffs compared to the time period of the rise of the unions.
The tipping point in the American economy seems to have started in the 1970's, not the "greed is good 80's". That coincides with the end of cheap oil.
What it corresponds with is the take off of the inequality gap between the haves and havenots, the increasing de-regulation of the financial markets and the assumption of greater risks, bringing the economy into wilder swings of boom and bust. Some the things that interacted were good effects such as the rise of technology, others were bad effects such as the energy crisis during the late 70's.
<snip>... but not that there are no doctors with an IQ below the number you stated. You must have sinewy thews with all the goalpost moving you do.
Yes! Gods Yes! I moved the goal posts.
My point was that MDs are the smartest profession overall and that point still holds. And it holds even better than I first surmised - the curve for MDs is tighter than I expected. Thank you Coriat for posting that link and keeping me honest :)
Said point was in support of a prior point that about 1/3 of Americans (or, if you care to be pedantic, 1/3 of all human beings) will get no good use out of college education.
A further 1/3 would be better served by a two year post-high school technical training. A technical path that began in high school.
The remaining 1/3 deserve a traditional 4-year college education regardless of family income.
And, yeah, I sound pretty darned certain with my opinions so let me throw in a little wiggle room to allow for agreement here.
Bullet - All would benefit from continuing education/OTJ training throughout their careers.
Bullet - People should also be given a clear and unobstructed choice about which 1/3 they want to be in, especially marginal cases or about 20% of the population, but really anyone that can show they have the metal (see next two bullets).
Bullet - There is room in my thinking for a plumber or auto mechanic with a 140 IQ but I wouldn't want my doctor to manage my health care if she was the intellectual equal of G.W. Bush. Sorry, I'm bigoted that way.
Bullet - Going the other way could happen but with a greater limit to the flex, like a minimum for MDs. If someone is dedicated to their work and honest in their efforts, then a person with a 90 IQ working in a field that averages 115 just means it will take longer to become competent at their job. And if they are dedicated enough said individual could well make a better lawyer than some jerk with a 130 IQ who's only in it for the money, or status, or...
Bullet - And while we're talking pie-in-the-sky, let's not limit the time frame for when this free education can begin. Mike the janitor may very well decide at age 40 that he's always wanted to be a beautician. Under this new educational regime someone like Mike should be as fully supported as someone at any other age.
I like the shorter work week but same salary to get more wealth back in the hands of more blue collar workers but...
The economic playing field is now global and global without tariffs or at least greatly reduced tariffs compared to the time period of the rise of the unions.
The tipping point in the American economy seems to have started in the 1970's, not the "greed is good 80's". That coincides with the end of cheap oil.
What it corresponds with is the take off of the inequality gap between the haves and havenots, the increasing de-regulation of the financial markets and the assumption of greater risks, bringing the economy into wilder swings of boom and bust. Some the things that interacted were good effects such as the rise of technology, others were bad effects such as the energy crisis during the late 70's.
There is no one simple cause.
In that vein, sometime later this year I will be able to vote. Voting is simple, and since our problems aren't, I deduce that my voting is a waste of time. I won't be registering. Just one more way for the government to track you anyway, right Doodlebug? ...you are lurking here.... you communist are lurking everywhere... :p
I like the shorter work week but same salary to get more wealth back in the hands of more blue collar workers but...
The economic playing field is now global and global without tariffs or at least greatly reduced tariffs compared to the time period of the rise of the unions.
The tipping point in the American economy seems to have started in the 1970's, not the "greed is good 80's". That coincides with the end of cheap oil.
What it corresponds with is the take off of the inequality gap between the haves and havenots, the increasing de-regulation of the financial markets and the assumption of greater risks, bringing the economy into wilder swings of boom and bust. Some the things that interacted were good effects such as the rise of technology, others were bad effects such as the energy crisis during the late 70's.
There is no one simple cause.
In that vein, sometime later this year I will be able to vote. Voting is simple, and since our problems aren't, I deduce that my voting is a waste of time. I won't be registering. Just one more way for the government to track you anyway, right Doodlebug? ...you are lurking here.... you communist are lurking everywhere... :p
As much as I try to encourage everyone to vote, I think I'm ok with you not voting.
If you take that graph at face value then there are no doctors (or anyone else) with an IQ above about 133.
Only if "take at face value" = "don't read the key"
Percentiles 10, 25, 50, 75 and 90 are marked, presumably so they get a useful graph rather than an unreadable mess distorted by outliers on the top and bottom.
So ten percent of MDs were anywhere below about 105, and ten percent anywhere above about 133.
If you take that graph at face value then there are no doctors (or anyone else) with an IQ above about 133.
...so I was off by 5 IQ points, my point still stands as...
You'll also note that MDs have the tightest curve and highest skew shown. Which emphatically supports my main point that Med School is one long IQ test.
Not only can you not infer from the graph properly (not 'everyone' is represented, thus taking it at face value to suggest no IQs above 133 is fallacious to begin with, ignoring the highest and lowest outliers not represented on the graph), not only can you not read the graph properly (the low point for doctors is 105, thus you were off by 20 IQ points, the difference between mental retardation and above average intelligence), but you have absolutely zero credibility when it comes to making a statement like 'this graph demonstrates the IQ test qualities of med school'.
You've literally been wrong on nearly all of your claims, the sole source of which you've provided for is your opinion. Your point not only does not stand, your entire credibility in talking about modern doctors, ancient emperors or anything in between is utterly shot. Despite that, you persist in acting as though you are the one ahead in the debate. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would pause at this point, and reeducate themselves on the topics before speaking further.
Said point was in support of a prior point that about 1/3 of Americans (or, if you care to be pedantic, 1/3 of all human beings) will get no good use out of college education.
A further 1/3 would be better served by a two year post-high school technical training. A technical path that began in high school.
The remaining 1/3 deserve a traditional 4-year college education regardless of family income.
And do you think that's anything like the division we have now? Do we do anything like divide by actual intelligence or ability? Or is it mostly by family income and social class? With exceptions for the extremes at both ends. Really dumb wealthy people don't make it through college and the really bright and driven poor can.
I'd also like to point out that most of the professions that you're talking about as needing the really high IQ require more than 4 year college degrees.
I like the shorter work week but same salary to get more wealth back in the hands of more blue collar workers but...
The economic playing field is now global and global without tariffs or at least greatly reduced tariffs compared to the time period of the rise of the unions.
The tipping point in the American economy seems to have started in the 1970's, not the "greed is good 80's". That coincides with the end of cheap oil.
What it corresponds with is the take off of the inequality gap between the haves and havenots, the increasing de-regulation of the financial markets and the assumption of greater risks, bringing the economy into wilder swings of boom and bust. Some the things that interacted were good effects such as the rise of technology, others were bad effects such as the energy crisis during the late 70's.
There is no one simple cause.
In that vein, sometime later this year I will be able to vote. Voting is simple, and since our problems aren't, I deduce that my voting is a waste of time. I won't be registering. Just one more way for the government to track you anyway, right Doodlebug? ...you are lurking here.... you communist are lurking everywhere... :p
In that vein, sometime later this year I will be able to vote. Voting is simple, and since our problems aren't, I deduce that my voting is a waste of time. I won't be registering. Just one more way for the government to track you anyway, right Doodlebug? ...you are lurking here.... you communist are lurking everywhere... :p
Let me get this straight, you refuse to vote ONCE A YEAR, because you're worried about the government tracking you, AND YOU'RE POSTING ON THE INTERNET ON AN HOURLY BASIS?!!! Do you use a cell phone? You do understand that they work by TRACKING YOUR LOCATION ON A CONSTANT BASIS? Just for disclosure, I do use a cellphone, because I'm not Crazy Paranoid Rob Lowe, even if I do use cable.
How did this country going from being the land of the GI Bill, one of the most educated on the planet, into the Land of the Stupid?
In that vein, sometime later this year I will be able to vote. Voting is simple, and since our problems aren't, I deduce that my voting is a waste of time. I won't be registering. Just one more way for the government to track you anyway, right Doodlebug? ...you are lurking here.... you communist are lurking everywhere... :p
Let me get this straight, you refuse to vote ONCE A YEAR, because you're worried about the government tracking you, AND YOU'RE POSTING ON THE INTERNET ON AN HOURLY BASIS?!!! Do you use a cell phone? You do understand that they work by TRACKING YOUR LOCATION ON A CONSTANT BASIS? Just for disclosure, I do use a cellphone, because I'm not Crazy Paranoid Rob Lowe, even if I do use cable.
How did this country going from being the land of the GI Bill, one of the most educated on the planet, into the Land of the Stupid?
you mean you don't post with a computer wrapped in tin foil? Cuz that's what I do.
If you take that graph at face value then there are no doctors (or anyone else) with an IQ above about 133.
Only if "take at face value" = "don't read the key"
Percentiles 10, 25, 50, 75 and 90 are marked, presumably so they get a useful graph rather than an unreadable mess distorted by outliers on the top and bottom.
So ten percent of MDs were anywhere below about 105, and ten percent anywhere above about 133.
Yes I already noticed that after making my post. I didn't bother to edit because, well responses like yours or Kain Darkwind seem to be forthcoming regardless. And if I can help make you guys feel better about yourselves that easly, well, sure... I'm secure enough in my manhood to do that. ;)
Back to the graph:
They were marked in white on a white background! Obviously the person making the graphic does not excel in the IQ department.
I'll bet the cut off for the lower end of MDs is pretty darn sharp. At least at any school where you want your doctor graduating from. You're certainly welcome to get services from Dr. Nick but I'll pass on that option.
Said point was in support of a prior point that about 1/3 of Americans (or, if you care to be pedantic, 1/3 of all human beings) will get no good use out of college education.
A further 1/3 would be better served by a two year post-high school technical training. A technical path that began in high school.
The remaining 1/3 deserve a traditional 4-year college education regardless of family income.
And do you think that's anything like the division we have now? Do we do anything like divide by actual intelligence or ability? Or is it mostly by family income and social class? With exceptions for the extremes at both ends. Really dumb wealthy people don't make it through college and the really bright and driven poor can.
I'd also like to point out that most of the professions that you're talking about as needing the really high IQ require more than 4 year college degrees.
Yes, but we're talking about free college right out of high school and no one is suggesting that post-Bac be included in that give away.
Also, you're confounding causes. Kids learn habits from their parents (and family in general) that last a lifetime. Devaluing education (or not) is clearly a family value (compare Asian-ancestry education expectations with south of the border expectations - a HUGE disparity that has nothing to do with income levels).
BTW - my future self not voting is predicated on the fact that one vote out of millions really does make no difference and it's very marginal utility is further confounded by the fact that the problems we are all discussing here won't be solved in the short time that our elected officials hold office. So real efforts at change one way will slosh back the other way in the next 4 to 8 years.
If you take that graph at face value then there are no doctors (or anyone else) with an IQ above about 133.
...so I was off by 5 IQ points, my point still stands as...
You'll also note that MDs have the tightest curve and highest skew shown. Which emphatically supports my main point that Med School is one long IQ test.
Not only can you not infer from the graph properly (not 'everyone' is represented, thus taking it at face value to suggest no IQs above 133 is fallacious to begin with, ignoring the highest and lowest outliers not represented on the graph), not only can you not read the graph properly (the low point for doctors is 105, thus you were off by 20 IQ points, the difference between mental retardation and above average intelligence), but you have absolutely zero credibility when it comes to making a statement like 'this graph demonstrates the IQ test qualities of med school'.
You've literally been wrong on nearly all of your claims, the sole source of which you've provided for is your opinion. Your point not only does not stand, your entire credibility in talking about modern doctors, ancient emperors or anything in between is utterly shot. Despite that, you persist in acting as though you are the one ahead in the debate. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would pause at this point, and reeducate themselves on the topics before speaking further.
Says the man with a marked lack of demonstrating that capacity here.
Your ad hominem is a deflection from the fact you have nothing of merit to say. Like all else you've put forth, it is an opinion given with zero facts to support. Dissembling about how the graph must be a poor example of graphics is precisely the type of feckless response typified throughout your entire conversation.
It is fairly clear that when it comes to decorum, debate, the ancient world or the modern one, you are as Jon Snow.
Your ad hominem is a deflection from the fact you have nothing of merit to say. Like all else you've put forth, it is an opinion given with zero facts to support. Dissembling about how the graph must be a poor example of graphics is precisely the type of feckless response typified throughout your entire conversation.
It is fairly clear that when it comes to decorum, debate, the ancient world or the modern one, you are as Jon Snow.
If you have something productive to say, which I doubt based on your demonstrated capacity thus far, please feel free to interact with my prior post (helpfully re-posted here to alleviate the challenge of scrolling back up thread):
My point was that MDs are the smartest profession overall and that point still holds. And it holds even better than I first surmised - the curve for MDs is tighter than I expected.
Said point was in support of a prior point that about 1/3 of Americans (or, if you care to be pedantic, 1/3 of all human beings) will get no good use out of college education.
A further 1/3 would be better served by a two year post-high school technical training. A technical path that began in high school.
The remaining 1/3 deserve a traditional 4-year college education regardless of family income.
And, yeah, I sound pretty darned certain with my opinions so let me throw in a little wiggle room to allow for agreement here.
Bullet - All would benefit from continuing education/OTJ training throughout their careers.
Bullet - People should also be given a clear and unobstructed choice about which 1/3 they want to be in, especially marginal cases or about 20% of the population, but really anyone that can show they have the metal (see next two bullets).
Bullet - There is room in my thinking for a plumber or auto mechanic with a 140 IQ but I wouldn't want my doctor to manage my health care if she was the intellectual equal of G.W. Bush. Sorry, I'm bigoted that way.
Bullet - Going the other way could happen but with a greater limit to the flex, like a minimum for MDs. If someone is dedicated to their work and honest in their efforts, then a person with a 90 IQ working in a field that averages 115 just means it will take longer to become competent at their job. And if they are dedicated enough said individual could well make a better lawyer than some jerk with a 130 IQ who's only in it for the money, or status, or...
Bullet - And while we're talking pie-in-the-sky, let's not limit the time frame for when this free education can begin. Mike the janitor may very well decide at age 40 that he's always wanted to be a beautician. Under this new educational regime someone like Mike should be as fully supported as someone at any other age.
Bullet - There is room in my thinking for a plumber or auto mechanic with a 140 IQ but I wouldn't want my doctor to manage my health care if she was the intellectual equal of G.W. Bush. Sorry, I'm bigoted that way.
Google is a wonderful tool.
(and yes, I've come to mistrust your assertions enough that I'm googling all of them now)
While Bush has been estimated at lower IQ than average for a president, all estimates still fall within the general middle 80% of doctors range that we saw above, and the average estimate (125) was a notch higher than the average MD.
I didn't like him either, but I don't think it's fair to use him as a byword for stupidity.
Relevant part:
Spoiler:
First, Bush is definitely intelligent. The IQ estimates range between 111.1 and 138.5, with an average around 125. That places him in the upper range of college graduates in raw intellect (Cronbach, 1960). Admittedly, this average is influenced by Cox's (1926) corrected scores, which may be overestimates. Yet even if we focus on just the uncorrected IQs, the range is between 111.1 and 128.5, with a mean around 120, which is about the average IQ for a college graduate in the United States. In addition, the figure is more than one standard deviation above the population mean, placing Bush in the upper 10% of the intelligence distribution (Storfer, 1990). These results endorse what has been claimed on the basis of his SAT scores and his Harvard MBA, namely, that his IQ most likely exceeds 115 (Immelman, 2001). He is certainly smart enough to be president of the United States (Simonton, 1985).
Second, Bush's IQ is below average relative to that subset of the U.S. citizens who also managed to work their way into the White House. In fact, his intellect falls near the bottom of the distribution. When compared with twentieth-century presidents from Theodore Roosevelt through Clinton, only Harding has a lower score (at least on three of the four estimates). A similar conclusion is suggested by the Intellectual Brilliance measure, albeit in this case there are now two twentieth century presidents with lower scores, namely, Harding and Coolidge. Moreover, Bush's IQ falls about 20 points-more than one standard deviation-below that of his predecessor, Clinton, a disparity that may have created a contrast effect that made any intellectual weaknesses all the more salient.
The continuing dubious statements about doctor intelligence (relative to presidents, sheer IQ, whatever) lead me to believe that you're, at least, seriously overestimating the raw intellect required to get through med school.
Could you maybe share some of the no doubt ironclad sources that led you to make your assertions on that topic?
Bullet - There is room in my thinking for a plumber or auto mechanic with a 140 IQ but I wouldn't want my doctor to manage my health care if she was the intellectual equal of G.W. Bush. Sorry, I'm bigoted that way.
Google is a wonderful tool.
While Bush has been estimated at lower IQ than average for a president, all estimates still fall within the general doctor range we saw above, and the average estimate (125) was slightly higher than the average MD.
I didn't like him either, but I don't think it's fair to use him as a byword for stupidity.
Relevant part:
** spoiler omitted **...
Bush also found it useful to play up the dumb thing. It appealed to the American anti-intellectual trend and probably led some of his enemies (and even supposed allies) to underestimate him. Certainly not brilliant, but much of it was a pose.
He was the guy you'd like to have a beer with, not like those elite types. Just a regular Joe.
Born into one of the richest families, son of a president, with a Harvard education, never really worked a day in his life other than being appointed to run companies that he pretty much trashed and the largely ceremonial governership of Texas (Lt. Gov really does the work there, as I understand it.)
And somehow managed to pass for not-elite. There's some talent there.
The poorer and worse off you are the harder and smarter you need to be to get out of poverty.
NO ONE is claiming that this is going to make everyone a doctor or an engineer.
But the easier you make it to climb out of poverty the more people will do it. This helps to do that. What is the argument against it? When someone needs to make horrible arguments against it that tells me that there are no good arguments against it.
My point was that MDs are the smartest profession overall and that point still holds.
First, you were off by a full standard deviation, which makes your point really suspect in general.
Second - even if for the sake of argument we assume that the bottom 10% of doctors not graphed might not be doing well in the field and we want at least the middle 80% - 105 IQ remains good enough to get into the middle 80% of doctors, and that's not very high.
And it's worth noting that a child with below 105 IQ who grows up while getting a good education can end up above that. Getting through school all the way through med school can increase your IQ to above average even if you start below it.
Which leads us to the more general point: the assertion that most people lack the raw intelligence to make use of an education is scientifically questionable, at very least because education actually has reflective effects that increase your raw intelligence. The two are not independent of one another.
Bullet - There is room in my thinking for a plumber or auto mechanic with a 140 IQ but I wouldn't want my doctor to manage my health care if she was the intellectual equal of G.W. Bush. Sorry, I'm bigoted that way.
Google is a wonderful tool.
(and yes, I've come to mistrust your assertions enough that I'm googling all of them now)
While Bush has been estimated at lower IQ than average for a president, all estimates still fall within the general middle 80% of doctors range that we saw above, and the average estimate (125) was a notch higher than the average MD.
I didn't like him either, but I don't think it's fair to use him as a byword for stupidity.
Relevant part:
** spoiler omitted **...
When were these estimates considered and what sources did they take into consideration? If you go back and watch his gubernatorial debate with Ann Richards then you can see a very intelligent person. If you watch any of his Q&A spots from about 2002 forward then it is clear that the dude had a stroke or some other mentally debilitating illness. For most of his presidency he was clearly not operating at the level he was in 1994 and 1998.
Bullet - There is room in my thinking for a plumber or auto mechanic with a 140 IQ but I wouldn't want my doctor to manage my health care if she was the intellectual equal of G.W. Bush. Sorry, I'm bigoted that way.
Google is a wonderful tool.
(and yes, I've come to mistrust your assertions enough that I'm googling all of them now)
While Bush has been estimated at lower IQ than average for a president, all estimates still fall within the general middle 80% of doctors range that we saw above, and the average estimate (125) was a notch higher than the average MD.
I didn't like him either, but I don't think it's fair to use him as a byword for stupidity.
Relevant part:
** spoiler omitted **...
When were these estimates considered and what sources did they take into consideration? If you go back and watch his gubernatorial debate with Ann Richards then you can see a very intelligent person. If you watch any of his Q&A spots from about 2002 forward then it is clear that the dude had a stroke or some other mentally debilitating illness. For most of his presidency he was clearly not operating at the level he was in 1994 and 1998.
Or it was, as I suggested, a more electable persona.
Most of the examples used to show Bush as being dumb are public speaking flubs. That's really not that hard of a thing to mess up and happens to a lot of people.
Also, arguing about IQ scores is meaningless. Studies have routinely shown that they're fundamentally flawed and cannot account for the numerous functions of our brain. IQ tests are too simplistic to account for all the actions that are happening and can happen in our brains.
I don't wholly agree, Irontruth, but you are quite entitled to your opinion. I do think IQ is not a direct indicator of one's success in life.
Here's some non-scientific things to consider.
Your brain is pretty complex. You know how to do many, many things. These categories are highly varied and operate very differently.
Motor functions
Language
Short term memory
Long term memory
Reasoning
These are each very complex processes, and the neural pathways in the brain differ significantly for each.
But somehow, a single number, that's basically on a scale from 0-200, can encapsulate all of that? Seems highly dubious.
To date, studies that examine education's result on IQ show that more schooling does indeed raise IQ. It averages out to ~3.5 points per year according to some samples, though data sets are limited
Something that's interesting, is that the IQ standard has to be revised ever few years. They had to account for ever increasing IQ scores, because each generation scores higher and higher on average, so what qualifies as a 100 IQ keeps being raised. I know many of us have watched Idiocracy, but it's based on falsehoods that come from bad statistics.
Now, some studies show that there are falling IQ scores. Typically this comes from looking at the scores of men who apply to join the military in various countries, because those are the people who typically take various versions of the IQ test the most. The problem with these studies is that it doesn't account for a self-selection bias that often happens in developed Western countries, most of the enlisted military applicants come from poor communities and those who didn't make it into college programs. IE: people who didn't do well at school and/or are less capable of performing well in such circumstances.
I think the IQ test is a potentially useful measure of ONE type of intelligence, but at the moment, we don't even have the neuroscience to truly define what that is. At best though, it's essentially one statistic among many that could give us a true measure of our brains.
Imagine comparing different cars, but you only got to see their torques at a specific speed, but you weren't told what speed that was, or even if that measurement of torque was the car's most efficient.
IQ is a measurement, but one that we don't truly understand, and at best, should be included with dozens of other measurements, many of which we haven't found a way to actually measure.
I don't wholly agree, Irontruth, but you are quite entitled to your opinion. I do think IQ is not a direct indicator of one's success in life.
I think the IQ test is a potentially useful measure of ONE type of intelligence, but at the moment, we don't even have the neuroscience to truly define what that is. At best though, it's essentially one statistic among many that could give us a true measure of our brains.
I don't wholly agree, Irontruth, but you are quite entitled to your opinion. I do think IQ is not a direct indicator of one's success in life.
I think the IQ test is a potentially useful measure of ONE type of intelligence, but at the moment, we don't even have the neuroscience to truly define what that is. At best though, it's essentially one statistic among many that could give us a true measure of our brains.
Wholehearted agreement.
The problem with the IQ test is that it's not even that. It's fatally flawed by cultural blinders. the right answers to an IQ test unfortunately are based from a narrow set of cultural prejudices and viewpoint.
About the only thing the IQ test measures.... is how well you take the IQ test.
BTW - my future self not voting is predicated on the fact that one vote out of millions really does make no difference and it's very marginal utility is further confounded by the fact that the problems we are all discussing here won't be solved in the short time that our elected officials hold office. So real efforts at change one way will slosh back the other way in the next 4 to 8 years.
So... voting = not worth the effort.
As much as it waves back and forth like a drunk, it does also move forward.
If you want to have an impact, vote in the primaries. That's where a lot of policy is decided.
And as little impact as voting has, the effort it takes is non existent. You can't chide someone for the laziness not to rise above their situation while not rising off your couch to vote.
It seems to me that a good personality seems to be a much better predictor of success in life than a high IQ. And I say that as a person with a high IQ and a pretty abrasive personality. :P
It seems to me that a good personality seems to be a much better predictor of success in life than a high IQ. And I say that as a person with a high IQ and a pretty abrasive personality. :P
You're saying I'm DOOMED then? :D
Coriat wrote:
Which leads us to the more general point: the assertion that most people lack the raw intelligence to make use of an education is scientifically questionable, at very least because education actually has reflective effects that increase your raw intelligence. The two are not independent of one another.
If you mean by that, "practice taking tests leads to improved ability to take tests", then I agree.
LazarX wrote:
The problem with the IQ test is that it's not even that. It's fatally flawed by cultural blinders. the right answers to an IQ test unfortunately are based from a narrow set of cultural prejudices and viewpoint.
About the only thing the IQ test measures.... is how well you take the IQ test.
While this sounds on the surface just like the statement I used to agree with Coriat, it has some subtle differences.
All testing is a type of IQ testing and carefully measured IQ is the best single predictor of a person's success. In order of importance are the following predictors:
1) As mentioned, the best measure of a person's success in a given field is their IQ.
2) After that comes their degree of interest in succeeding in that field.
3) If for some reason those two are roughly equal between two people in the same field, then amicability floats to the top as the best predictor of success.
These three as predictors, in that order, only apply to everyone in a given field of endeavor. Individuals can break the order - a complete dork might really want to be a newscaster, and might have a high IQ, but if he's generally perceived to be a dork then high marks in the other two predictors will not avail him. He will fail.
Classic IQ tests measure three of the supposed many types of intelligence - Linguistic, Mathematical, and Spatial. Two other types that seem particularly striking to me (i.e. actually real) but are more than a little hard to test for are, Interpersonal intelligence and Musicality.
Other types, like Intrapersonal, Existential, Body-kinesthetic, etc., seem more an outgrowth of the overlap of the first three-to-five types. If someone wants to argue that the "know thyself" bit is real, and therefore important, I won't disagree as it sounds suspiciously like the "degree of interest" element mentioned under 2) above.
Freehold DM wrote:
I don't wholly agree, Irontruth, but you are quite entitled to your opinion. I do think IQ is not a direct indicator of one's success in life.
H'yup. Look at Justin Bieber. Not too bright and, if you measure success as dollars earned, he could stop now and be more successful than anyone on the Paizo forums.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
And as little impact as voting has, the effort it takes is non existent. You can't chide someone for the laziness not to rise above their situation while not rising off your couch to vote.
Oh but I can.
Not voting when I can is a better use of my time than voting that makes no difference.
In a democracy the people get the government they asked for. And given that 5,000 years of recorded human history tells me we cannot change... well, when what I want is lumped together with what 100 million other people want, then my time is better spent doing something I actually enjoy rather than sweating for change I know won't happen.*
*Or, if change does happen one way, it will slosh back the other in a few more years. It always has and there is nothing about human nature that makes me think it can ever be otherwise.
