Well that was my question, too!
Yet, it was you who said "And the idea the left agenda is actually looking for such equality is a farce."
I am on the left, and what you said is not true of me. Were you talking about some other left?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Trump Appeals to So Many Americans, IMO
- Thread starter joe1776
- Start date
Yet, it was you who said "And the idea the left agenda is actually looking for such equality is a farce."
I am on the left, and what you said is not true of me. Were you talking about some other left?
Augustus
…
You are confusing yourself, they are the same thing: psychology 'experts' in academia and those that rely on them being wrong.
Hence:
Don't forget your entire schtick is based on psychologists being morons who peddle nonsense
You aren't an expert on anything you discuss here, doesn't stop you forming opinions and considering every single expert alive to be stunningly wrong and yourself objectively 'right'
Anyway, there are plenty of experts who criticise IQ testing, including for the reasons mentioned, none that promote your view of a perfect universal morality that you've ever been able to cite. See the problem of insisting we must uncritically trust 'experts'?
IQ tests are 'fundamentally flawed' and using them alone to measure
IQ tests predictable, linear, rule based aspects of our cognition, good for simple environments. Intelligence is environment specific though, and much of our environment is complex and what helps us in situation A might harm us in situation B. Unfortunately you deny the concept of Complexity exists so this is a dead end.
Other than confusing narcissism the disorder, and selfishness as a character trait:
Compartmentalization is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.
Compartmentalization allows these conflicting ideas to co-exist by inhibiting direct or explicit acknowledgement and interaction between separate compartmentalized self-states.[1]
Compartmentalization (psychology) - Wikipedia
Your compartmentalisation:
1. We should trust some psychologists on intelligence purely because they are experts (while ignoring the numerous experts who disagree, and all the scientists who study the field of Complexity who you claim are studying something that doesn't exist)
2. We should consider every single psychologist to be so completely incompetent on morality that a random chap off the internet 'objectively' solves the issue of human morality based on reading a well-known 250 year old text, thus guaranteeing universal harmony and refuting some of the most well established psychological principles (such as in-group bias).
Augustus
…
Education very much impacts IQ, as does practising IQ test, as does incentivising people to do IQ test as do countless factors you are not born with.
Do you really think that if you spent 1 year practising IQ tests it would have no impact on your IQ test results?
In some African countries average IQ is in the low 70s, are you saying these people are naturally unintelligent as the scientific racialist do (I don't think you believe this btw)? If not, can you explain how you can claim IQ is accurate and IQ is purely genetic, but not believe this?
You miss the point, it is not about maths, but rule based thinking in a predictable environment - what is tested in IQ tests and people mistake for 'intelligence'.
Correlations Creativity, Intelligence, Personality, and Entrepreneurship Achievement
The research shows that (1) There is no significant correlation between creativity (CQ) and entrepreneurship achievement (EA) of the graduates; (2) There is no significant correlations between intelligence level (IQ) and entrepreneurship achievement (EA) of the graduates; and (3) There is a significant correlation between personality level (PQ) and entrepreneurship a achievement (EA) of the graduates.
https://cyberleninka.org/article/n/1042908.pdf
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Progressives welcome social change and conservatives oppose it. Progressives want economic change and conservatives oppose it. Why do you think that is?
joe1776
Well-Known Member
The experts on IQ testing generally agree. That's not true with talk therapy or moral judgments. So, the weight of evidence suggests that IQ testing is probably valid but psychologists on talk therapy and morality can't be trusted.
I trust the experts on IQ tests, the climate and many other things that I haven't studied.You aren't an expert on anything you discuss here, doesn't stop you forming opinions and considering every single expert alive to be stunningly wrong and yourself objectively 'right'
I like it when my debate opponents feel the need to create strawman arguments.
Another strawman. What I deny is that scientists have proven methods to predict the effects of a complex system. But, more importantly, I reject your use of an unproven field as an argument against an hypothesis offering a cause which credibly explains many effects. Scientists love such elegant theories. You scorn them as simplistic.
?
Two strawman arguments on one paragraph. I don't claim that complexity doesn't exist and I don't claim that experts on intelligence should be trusted purely because they're experts.
Your memory of my position on moral intuition is flawed. My position is not based on my reading of a 250 year-old text. And my position doesn't refute in-group bias. It credibly explains its cause.
Since you can't seem to keep my positions straight in your mind, will you please quote me in the future rather than offering your own version of my positions?
Last edited:
Consider that once people believe something held dear,
contraindicating information often doesn't sway them.
We have sincere creationists, Koran literalists, Bible
literalists, 9/11 truthers, Moon landing deniers, etc.
Tis not important to me whether Trump is dishonest
or deluded when the effect is the same.
Something in the news to suggest that Trump still
believes that he won by a landslide....
After White House Meeting with Trump, Mike Lindell Calls for Military Coup on Facebook - The Bulwark
Last edited:
joe1776
Well-Known Member
You are exaggerating. Studying probably has an effect on IQ scores much in the same way that exercising has an effect on muscle strength. But there's no reason to suspect that "countless factors you are not born with" have their effect.
Of course it would, but since no one in his right mind would do that, it's not a factor. If a whole bunch of people were able to get their hands on a collection of IQ tests and began cramming for the exam, and it became a widespread phenomenon, THEN you'd have a justifiable reason to distrust the value of IQ testing.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
Here you seem to imply that if the 'experts' were in significant dispute over the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence, then you would consider them untrustworthy.
If you had studied it yourself instead of uncritically trusting 'experts', then you would be aware that 'experts' very much disagree on the validity of IQ testing as a measure of intelligence (I note you purposely omitted the study I linked to on this topic.
So, seeing as the experts disagree, are you going to revise your position to be consistent in your arguments? (and if you don't believe me that experts very much disagree, search for yourself
IQ tests are 'fundamentally flawed' and using them alone to measure intelligence is a 'fallacy', study finds
The idea that intelligence can be measured by IQ tests alone is a fallacy according to the largest single study into human cognition which found that it comprises of at least three distinct mental traits.
IQ tests are 'fundamentally flawed' and using them alone to measure
Does IQ Really Predict Job Performance?
In the absence of a clear theoretical model of internal cognitive functions, however, construct validity for IQ tests has always been difficult to establish. Test validity, therefore, has always been indirect, by correlating individual differences in test scores with what are assumed to be other criteria of intelligence. Job performance has, for several reasons, been one such criterion... There remains great uncertainty about the interpretation of IQ-job performance correlations and great caution needs to be exercised in using them as a basis for the validity of IQ tests and associated concepts.
As others have pointed out, statistical corrections are no magical compensation for weak data and that it is risky to reach conclusions about test validities from those currently available (Oswald & McCloy, 2003; Russell & Gilliland, 1995). The only solution is properly conducted primary studies, with larger representative samples, better measures, and so on. Until they are available, investigators should be extremely cautious about disseminating conclusions about IQ test validities, from correlations between IQ and job performance.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10888691.2014.983635
Not a strawman again, as per your own words you deny complex systems (in the scientific sense) exist
You consider it 'semantics' to differentiate between a complex system, such as human society or the brain, and a complicated system like a normal software application or an airplane.
By insisting there is no difference, you deny Complex Systems exist in the scientific sense whether you understand why or not.
Do you still believe that there is no difference between something complicated like a plane or MS Word and 'Complex Systems' (in the scientific sense)?
No idea what this means, but it sure seems like you have no idea what a complex system is.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume you do. Can you answer the following, true false will do, but ideally explain a false answer (or a true one for the last Q).
a) Human society is a Complex System - true/false
b) The brain is a complex system - true/false
c) We have incomplete information regarding both the brain and human society - true/false
d) It is possible to make certain predictions regarding the interaction of multiple complex systems based on incomplete information - true/false
Last edited:
I’m not talking about you as an individual.Well that was my question, too!
Yet, it was you who said "And the idea the left agenda is actually looking for such equality is a farce."
I am on the left, and what you said is not true of me. Were you talking about some other left?
I don’t agree with your two propositions.
ecco
Veteran Member
You still have not answered one of the basic questions I asked - Do you understand what median income means?
If one worker makes 10,000 per year and another person makes 100,000 the median is 45,000.
If the one worker makes 10,000 and the other gets a boost, because of Trump policies, to 150,000 the median is 70,000.
Did that increase in the median income benefit the low-income worker?
Did that increase in the median income benefit the high-income worker?
No one denies that rich people have gotten richer over the past four years.
Also, your newly posted chart states that the numbers were "analyzed by the author". "Analyzed"? Have you ever heard the expression "Figures don't lie, liars figure"? It's not too hard to present pieces of information that favor one's view. It's just like creos posting quotes out of context to present a false narrative.
ecco
Veteran Member
For some reason, many of these delusional cranks are Good Christians.
Your link, my emphases...
Following his meeting with President Trump on Friday, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell said in a Facebook interview with Right Side Broadcasting News today that he’s praying that the military presence in Washington is part of Trump’s plan to retain power.
We’ve all had our prayers going, “Gee maybe somethings gonna be done that this president is willing to say hey we’ve been attacked by another country cause we have.
FWIW, the article is a real chuckle and insight into the warped brain of the Pillow Con Man.We’ve all had our prayers going, “Gee maybe somethings gonna be done that this president is willing to say hey we’ve been attacked by another country cause we have.
If they believe the con, it's not a con.
ecco
Veteran Member
Tell that to Doyle Lonnegan.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
That's right, significant dispute. There is no significant dispute by my definition of the term..
Why do you think that linking me to a study that questions the validity of IQ tests by asking Does IQ predict job performance? should be persuasive?
Answering that particular question would require reliable data on a fair-size group of employees, their IQs, and some way to accurately grade their performances. We know the authors of this study didn't have those. No one does.
There are many factors involved with job performance. If the job doesn't require high intelligence, the high IQ employee is likely to get bored. So, there would be a negative correlation unless there was reliable data on the amount of intelligence the job required.
However, generally, high intelligence is logically an advantage in learning and doing most tasks.
Here are the reliability and validity results of the Stanford IQ test which has been improved upon over many years:
Stanford-Binet IQ test
Reliability
Several reliability tests have been performed on the SB5 including split-half reliability, standard error of measurement, plotting of test information curves, test-retest stability, and inter-scorer agreement. On average, IQ scores for this scale have been found quite stable across time (Janzen, Obrzut, & Marusiak, 2003). Internal consistency was tested by split-half reliability and was reported to be substantial and comparable to other cognitive batteries (Bain & Allin, 2005). The median interscorer correlation was .90 on average (Janzen, Obrzut, & Marusiak, 2003). The SB5 has also been found to have great precision at advanced levels of performance meaning that the test is especially useful in testing children for giftedness (Bain & Allin, 2005). There have only been a small amount of practice effects and familiarity of testing procedures with retest reliability; however, these have proven to be insignificant. Readministration of the SB5 can occur in a six-month interval rather than one year due to the small mean differences in reliability (Bain & Allin, 2005).
Validity
Content validity has been found based on the professional judgments Roid received concerning fairness of items and item content as well as items concerning the assessment of giftedness (Bain & Allin, 2005). With an examination of age trends, construct validity was supported along with empirical justification of a more substantial g loading for the SB5 compared to previous editions. The potential for a variety of comparisons, especially for within or across factors and verbal/nonverbal domains, has been appreciated with the scores received from the SB5 (Bain & Allin, 2005).
Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales - Wikipedia
I have in past threads proven my knowledge of scientific complexity to you, but you can't seem to keep my positions straight. I'm not interested in proving it to you again.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
And your reasons aren't worth mentioning?
Augustus
…
Seeing as you admit you haven't studied it, how do you know most experts think IQ = intelligence?
I don't as you are uninterested in anything that goes against your pet theories.
But seeing as you are making claims, might be worth understanding what you are making claims about:
In the absence of a clear theoretical model of internal cognitive functions, however, construct validity for IQ tests has always been difficult to establish. Test validity, therefore, has always been indirect, by correlating individual differences in test scores with what are assumed to be other criteria of intelligence. Job performance has, for several reasons, been one such criterion...
"Validity" section is based on a single source, hardly an overwhelming proof.
Yes, you've proved your knowledge is zero beyond all doubt.
You've ducked the questions endlessly because you don't understand the terms involved and so can't respond rationally.
You are very predictable on this
Feel free to prove me wrong by answering 4 true/ false questions (you've written thousands of words promoting your theories, the only reason you refuse these 4 words is pretty obvious)
Friend of Mara
Active Member
In my experience people who support Trump falls into one of two categories. The first and most reasonable kind are people who think that democrats will simply hurt the economy or their religious freedom or whatever. So to them they would support anyone with a pulse that isn't a democrat. The second are people who bust a nut when they disgruntle the left. Thats what they live for. We can "own the libs". And if Trump pisses off the people that they hate. And they hate the gays, feminists, non-Christians, ect. Then there is a small percentage of Q worshipers who are just plain conspiracy theorists.
I don't know of very many people who follow him because they think that his policies are actually great policies. Some do but those people don't even know what his polices are.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I explained this earlier. IQ testing is accepted as valid and is commonplace in both academic and corporate America.
Unbiased readers of this thread will note that you've given up on debate and turned instead to insults. Is that really the impression you wanted to leave them with?
Last edited:
I spoke of the perspective of the con man.