kazahana

0

kazahana wrote

One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.

Even Wikipedia knows why you are bad at science.

2

kazahana wrote

I barely even know any very high IQ people who take the concept all that seriously to begin with. Even among people in the "too high to be measured by the test" range, I've been hard-pressed to find people who place an awful lot of stock in it.

2

kazahana wrote (edited )

I think the question should actually be, "How would meritocracy work?"

Identifying modern or past capitalist systems as meritocratic is woefully misguided to start. As it stands, the current system is mostly a system of "some individual or small group chooses someone with the whitest and most masculine name, preferably with prestigious relatives etc., to do X."

I am sort of afraid socialism would end up in the same trap, so I think the first step would be to remove as many personal identifying characteristics from selection processes as possible. No age, no gender, no name, no birthplace, etc.

Preferably, the options should also be reviewed by committee, after applicants self-select the field they would like to go into. Having some sort of electronic test of pure ability would be a good idea, too, especially if the tests could completely replace the traditional application--if they can pass the test, their work and education history is kind of irrelevant.

6

kazahana wrote (edited )

he might change some small things but not much

it would take electing a congress full of Sanders clones and stacking the courts with Sanders clones for him to be able to do much anyway, there is a reason that over the decades even presidents who talk completely different games end up almost the same on policy and it is not simply because they are liars

from the beginning, the state is designed to serve the state, electing a single person who is "not like that" does nothing to change the system

2

kazahana wrote

one person harvesting enough for only one person to eat is pretty easy though

it's actually about the same amount of physical effort as preparing animal products, but much safer and less psychologically difficult

that is the angle of the question

2

kazahana wrote

They're nowhere near as common as people who don't, though, is the thing.

Though I suspect part of the difference is that a fair number of veg*ns have more difficulty handling meat by nature than carnists do. At least, part of my reason for switching initially was that I had started cooking and found I couldn't handle meat without freaking out a bit.

There are probably more people who would have that difficulty if they had to handle the killing and cleaning parts, too...

3

kazahana wrote

Science is not done by just telling people X is pseudoscience and thus not worth considering. It is done by evidence and evidence alone.

There is plenty of evidence by which to judge IQ. Throwing it out just because is no different from those who cling to it just because.

0

kazahana wrote

iq and iq comparison are science

bad science is still science and needs to be addressed the same way all other science is: a good old fashioned effort at disproving it

2

kazahana wrote

women are easier to convince of climate change and he is implying it is because women are stupid and therefore obviously climate change is wrong

he conveniently left out that higher IQ is also associated with higher belief in climate change and his so-called "gullibility" etc.

3

kazahana wrote (edited )

it primarily captures working memory

there are countless mostly independent aspects of cognition and most IQ tests are heavily weighted toward capturing only one or two of them, and then in the event a test does measure two it tends to immediately conflate them into one score regardless

the reason several dozen apparent "learning disabilities" exist to begin with is because different parts of the brain are being called upon to perform each of these things... and the fact that any one of them can function outside population norms and expectations should indicate that all of these things function on a spectrum

but some people just desperately want to boil all that down into a simple test like IQ which has shown extreme levels of test-retest variance and call it "g", the general intelligence factor

it is ridiculous

worse yet, a quick look at the literature shows direct measures designed to identify working memory alone actually are more useful measures of learning ability than IQ is... so why is IQ still a thing?

6

kazahana wrote

Because the people deciding who the great philosophers are, are racist?

It would also be why you can apparently only be a great philosopher if you're white. Virtually every other culture in the world has a considerable history of philosophy or some field of thought very similar, but you're not very likely to hear about them when you could just hear Europeeuropeeurope all the time.

4

kazahana wrote

iirc it's been found the areas in which men score higher on average are accounted for by the confidence gap, which basically means men are more likely to answer harder questions that women will more often just give up on

i haven't seen anything explaining or debunking the standard deviation difference though