Unbelievably Heartbreaking

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:02 pm

I frequently find the details of the Race and IQ question uninspiring, and I think many other people do because they, consciously or not, move it to a more dramatic and emotional level. When done consciously this isn't so much of a problem, if we know we are doing pathos then at least we know where we stand - even if it's a bloody annoying place to stand.
The problem comes when this is unconscious, when we try to mix pathos and logos as if it's all about the latter (which is usually the assumption) and then we get the circular conversions that peter out only to restart further down the line, how far depends on how short people's memories are.

Stefan Molyneux does a good job of consciously embracing both here ("unbelievably heartbreaking"), but as a commentator he doesn't shy away from pathos so the issue is in safer hands with him. One thing is for sure, whilst folks from all over the political spectrum refuse to adopt anything but an emotional perspective, then this subject, as well as several others is destined to remain uselessly explosive.


dusty
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:14 pm

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by dusty » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:01 pm

whenever the topic is mentioned in my IRL circles it's only to dismiss the question itself as racism based on "pseudoscience"

what i've learned from people is that: 1. IQ is a worthless metric rooted in white supremacy 2. race itself doesn't exist 3. The Bell Curve is "long debunked"

whereas whenever i feel like looking at thoughtcrimey material on the internet much of its conclusions are based on the legitimacy of IQ and other demographic statistics (crime, test scores etc), as well as personal anecdotal observations (which itself is completely worthless when being experienced thru the prism of white supremacy)

i've never felt much inclined to explore the question myself, probably because as you say it's an emotionally charged topic, so i have no idea whether the left wing dismissal is justified. all i have is my own personal experience which if i thought about for any length of time might lead me to "heartbreaking" conclusions i'd rather avoid

below is one of a series of documentaries made by a norwegian filmmaker tackling difficult questions like race and gender in a balanced, open-minded manner. what is most remarkable, yet not remotely surprising, is the responses given by the norwegian social scientists interviewed


User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:36 pm

I'm going to have a look at that video but I would like to jump in with my standard response to your No. 1 above which is that "White Supremacy" is an ill-fitting tag to use as whites only occupy the middle ground on the IQ distribution (ie.. 'ordinary, not supreme), the logical conclusion, if one were to take that route, would be 'Jewish supremacy'. Dave and Stefan explore this in a good humoured way.
This seems a plain observation to me, but most people completely ignore it , always coming back to 'whiteness'.

Regarding IQ being a worthless metric, I'd say fine.. let's treat it as incidental and measure it anyway. Personally I haven't got much time for it either, but that's no reason for me to make broad statements about it.

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by Pauli137 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:16 pm

The issue can't adequately be addressed without considering Gardner's multiple intelligences.

Some non-Wikipedia links:

http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html
https://www.niu.edu/facdev/_pdf/guide/l ... gences.pdf

I'm OK with people talking about human biodiversity as long as (1) diversity is actually valued and the dangers of monoculture are recognized; and (2) the narrow view of "intelligence" represented by IQ is abandoned.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:53 pm

Pauli137 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:16 pm
The issue can't adequately be addressed without considering Gardner's multiple intelligences.

Some non-Wikipedia links:

http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html
https://www.niu.edu/facdev/_pdf/guide/l ... gences.pdf

I'm OK with people talking about human biodiversity as long as (1) diversity is actually valued and the dangers of monoculture are recognized; and (2) the narrow view of "intelligence" represented by IQ is abandoned.
As long as what is being measured is properly defined from the outset, and one is consistent about this, there shouldn't be a problem.

You address this in your second point anyway, and it is helpful to seperate IQ (ie, a simple quotent) from intelligence. There's no need to abandon IQ, just understand its limitations.

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by Pauli137 » Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:28 am

jakell wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:53 pm
Pauli137 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:16 pm
The issue can't adequately be addressed without considering Gardner's multiple intelligences.

Some non-Wikipedia links:

http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html
https://www.niu.edu/facdev/_pdf/guide/l ... gences.pdf

I'm OK with people talking about human biodiversity as long as (1) diversity is actually valued and the dangers of monoculture are recognized; and (2) the narrow view of "intelligence" represented by IQ is abandoned.
As long as what is being measured is properly defined from the outset, and one is consistent about this, there shouldn't be a problem.

You address this in your second point anyway, and it is helpful to seperate IQ (ie, a simple quotent) from intelligence. There's no need to abandon IQ, just understand its limitations.
It's the narrow view that I advocate abandoning. IQ measures only one or two of Gardner's intelligences. There are others, and they are equally important to the human experience. In particular, our society undervalues these three intelligences: interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. The first two are missing in many individuals with extremely high IQ, and I doubt they are even quantitatively measurable. The third may be measurable, but not easily so.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:09 am

Pauli137 wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:28 am
jakell wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:53 pm
Pauli137 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:16 pm
The issue can't adequately be addressed without considering Gardner's multiple intelligences.

Some non-Wikipedia links:

http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html
https://www.niu.edu/facdev/_pdf/guide/l ... gences.pdf

I'm OK with people talking about human biodiversity as long as (1) diversity is actually valued and the dangers of monoculture are recognized; and (2) the narrow view of "intelligence" represented by IQ is abandoned.
As long as what is being measured is properly defined from the outset, and one is consistent about this, there shouldn't be a problem.

You address this in your second point anyway, and it is helpful to seperate IQ (ie, a simple quotent) from intelligence. There's no need to abandon IQ, just understand its limitations.
It's the narrow view that I advocate abandoning. IQ measures only one or two of Gardner's intelligences. There are others, and they are equally important to the human experience. In particular, our society undervalues these three intelligences: interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. The first two are missing in many individuals with extremely high IQ, and I doubt they are even quantitatively measurable. The third may be measurable, but not easily so.
The trouble is that that "narrow view" would not be favoured by the scientific community** anyway, it is one held by the general public. Trying to hone a definition held by the former is relatively easy, they would value utility and value an opportunity to avoid difficulties arising form controversy, but changing the view of the latter is a Herculean task. Good luck encouraging folks to abandon that.
It's worth pointing out that by "general public" here I don't mean the average Joe, many ordinary folks would not bother with the concept or would feel nonplussed about it. Ironically, to have a strong personal (ie, not parroted) opinion about this requires someone to already a degree of understanding about the concepts, plus the self-awareness to balance critical thinking with emotional responses. Intelligence is entangled within the problem itself, so even the starting point is difficult.

This last is why I was motivated to post and comment on the video in the OP. Stefan, instead of talking the usual routes of either getting bogged down with the detail, or conversely putting it aside because it is too difficult (which tends to be my response), takes a middle route and grasps that nettle. He says yes, it is a difficult and uncomfortable subject, but let's be courageous and deal with it anyway - note, he's not talking of the feelings of the so-called 'race realists' here, but those of liberal folks. He's speaking of the application of emotional intelligence.

** I use "scientific" in a loose sense here. Some of the basic data points are difficult to pin down (race for instance), so we're not talking of a hard science. That looseness is inherent sociological fields anyway, it can't be avoided.
By "scientific" I mean a scientific approach to the data, not the data itself.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by C_D » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:47 pm

I'm not a fan at all of IQ tests.

Even less so since the general dumbing down of educational standards has accelerated in the last 30 years. IQ is generally measured by those outside of acedemia and science as the ability to conform to pre-conceived ideas. In fact, I find IQ tests offensive - they are just another method to pigeonhole into 'type'. Many of the most 'super intelligent' people I've met are unable to keep their clothes clean - and it's always egg stains. Why egg? I digress. I've never met anyone who thought they were anything less than intelligent - and I found them to be so - perhaps that's because I bother to engage.

Fuck IQ tests.

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by Pauli137 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:38 pm

C_D wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:47 pm
I'm not a fan at all of IQ tests.

Even less so since the general dumbing down of educational standards has accelerated in the last 30 years. IQ is generally measured by those outside of acedemia and science as the ability to conform to pre-conceived ideas. In fact, I find IQ tests offensive - they are just another method to pigeonhole into 'type'. Many of the most 'super intelligent' people I've met are unable to keep their clothes clean - and it's always egg stains. Why egg? I digress. I've never met anyone who thought they were anything less than intelligent - and I found them to be so - perhaps that's because I bother to engage.

Fuck IQ tests.
That's what Gardner was trying to address: there are multiple intelligences, and many of them are not measured by IQ. Some of them are addressed by the concept of EQ. In my own experience, the two tend to trade off against each other. While it's not impossible to simultaneously have high intelligence in the areas measured by IQ and some of those that we think of as social/emotional intelligence, it is usually difficult to access both forms of intelligence simultaneously, due to the way the human brain operates. So people who fall into the habit of over-using logical-mathematical intelligence typically also fall into the habit of ignoring the interpersonal and body-kinesthetic faculties.

At a philosophical level, the logical-mathematical mindset tends to view the world in terms of abstract objects that can be mentally manipulated. This is at odds with the more holistic mindset that processes the world in terms of unified wholes and unique and concrete instances that cannot be abstracted.

Or, as I used to tell people, it is hard for me to dance and do math on the same day.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:43 pm

C_D wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:47 pm
I'm not a fan at all of IQ tests.

Even less so since the general dumbing down of educational standards has accelerated in the last 30 years. IQ is generally measured by those outside of acedemia and science as the ability to conform to pre-conceived ideas. In fact, I find IQ tests offensive - they are just another method to pigeonhole into 'type'. Many of the most 'super intelligent' people I've met are unable to keep their clothes clean - and it's always egg stains. Why egg? I digress. I've never met anyone who thought they were anything less than intelligent - and I found them to be so - perhaps that's because I bother to engage.

Fuck IQ tests.
Again though, if one treats them as a simple measure of something with no baggage attached, then there's no problem. It's what people go on to make of this afterwards that becomes awkward. This is why it's useful to make a distinction between IQ and intelligence.

So above, you didn't mean super-intelligent people, you meant high IQ people.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by C_D » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:48 am

Again though, if one treats them as a simple measure of something with no baggage attached, then there's no problem. It's what people go on to make of this afterwards that becomes awkward.
No baggage attached? :lol:
This is why it's useful to make a distinction between IQ and intelligence
IQ = Intelligence Quotient

This is why it's useful to make a distinction between Intelligence Quotient and intelligence

I'm not seeing the distinction. :-)

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:07 am

C_D wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:48 am
jakell wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:43 pm
Again though, if one treats them as a simple measure of something with no baggage attached, then there's no problem. It's what people go on to make of this afterwards that becomes awkward.
No baggage attached? :lol:
This is why it's useful to make a distinction between IQ and intelligence
IQ = Intelligence Quotient

This is why it's useful to make a distinction between Intelligence Quotient and intelligence

I'm not seeing the distinction. :-)
I'm making a distinction. This difference has already been pointed out here though by those who regard IQ as inadequate.

It's the difference between a representation and the thing itself.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by C_D » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:13 am

Yeah, got it. Soz.

Still don't like it. :-)

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:20 am

C_D wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:13 am
Yeah, got it. Soz.

Still don't like it. :-)

Well, it's not likeable.

This is the reason I felt moved to make this thread, because Stefan expressed this too. He did it rather hyperbolically (reflected in the thread title) but I think that's, in part, a deliberate move to get us past the reaction that makes most people withdraw from this stuff and refrain from thinking about it.

I think this 'withdrawal' mechanism is something that gets used in social manipulation. Terrorism is an extreme example, apart from brief but intense examination of individual incidents, any further examination and an attempt to connect the dots results in silence and ostracisation because 'regular' people are meant to withdraw at a certain point.
That's a specific example, but there are more general ones that become visible, not so much at the source, but by the blowback that occurs under the cries of "racist!" (most likely in the case here) or "Sexist!", or the more recent inventions of Islamaphobe, Transphobe, Able-ist etc.

minime
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:52 pm

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by minime » Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:02 pm

jakell wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:53 pm
Pauli137 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:16 pm
The issue can't adequately be addressed without considering Gardner's multiple intelligences.

Some non-Wikipedia links:

http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html
https://www.niu.edu/facdev/_pdf/guide/l ... gences.pdf

I'm OK with people talking about human biodiversity as long as (1) diversity is actually valued and the dangers of monoculture are recognized; and (2) the narrow view of "intelligence" represented by IQ is abandoned.
As long as what is being measured is properly defined from the outset, and one is consistent about this, there shouldn't be a problem.

You address this in your second point anyway, and it is helpful to seperate IQ (ie, a simple quotent) from intelligence. There's no need to abandon IQ, just understand its limitations.
its

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by C_D » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:34 pm

its
Yes, indeed.

minime
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:52 pm

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by minime » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:29 pm

C_D wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:34 pm
its
Yes, indeed.
It's the little things...

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:44 pm

jakell wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:36 pm
dusty wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:01 pm
...what i've learned from people is that: 1. IQ is a worthless metric rooted in white supremacy 2. race itself doesn't exist 3. The Bell Curve is "long debunked"...
I'm going to have a look at that video but I would like to jump in with my standard response to your No. 1 above which is that "White Supremacy" is an ill-fitting tag to use as whites only occupy the middle ground on the IQ distribution (ie.. 'ordinary, not supreme), the logical conclusion, if one were to take that route, would be 'Jewish supremacy'. Dave and Stefan explore this in a good humoured way.
This seems a plain observation to me, but most people completely ignore it , always coming back to 'whiteness'.

Regarding IQ being a worthless metric, I'd say fine.. let's treat it as incidental and measure it anyway. Personally I haven't got much time for it either, but that's no reason for me to make broad statements about it.
I say "standard response" here because it's a bit of a no-brainer once one looks objectively at the material. It's rests upon the coarse assumption that IQ=intelligence though but, as this is an answer to that assumption, I would tend to leave it at that.

Here though, as in most of the more considered examinations of the subject, we have opened up intelligence to mean more than IQ. It has occurred to me that this can give second wind to that easily discarded white supremacy claim.
It could be said that the extremes of IQ both have drawbacks.. the lower one leading to poor functioning and the higher one leading to introversion, introspection, obsessiveness and narrow specialisation, all things that can be found to various degrees on the autism spectrum, the 'sweet-spot' lying somewhere in between. A canny (and more nuanced) white-supremacist, agreeing that whites tend to occupy this middle ground, might therefore find fresh justifications for that belief.

This would be a much harder one to argue against.

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by Pauli137 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:08 am

jakell wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:44 pm
jakell wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:36 pm
dusty wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:01 pm
...what i've learned from people is that: 1. IQ is a worthless metric rooted in white supremacy 2. race itself doesn't exist 3. The Bell Curve is "long debunked"...
I'm going to have a look at that video but I would like to jump in with my standard response to your No. 1 above which is that "White Supremacy" is an ill-fitting tag to use as whites only occupy the middle ground on the IQ distribution (ie.. 'ordinary, not supreme), the logical conclusion, if one were to take that route, would be 'Jewish supremacy'. Dave and Stefan explore this in a good humoured way.
This seems a plain observation to me, but most people completely ignore it , always coming back to 'whiteness'.

Regarding IQ being a worthless metric, I'd say fine.. let's treat it as incidental and measure it anyway. Personally I haven't got much time for it either, but that's no reason for me to make broad statements about it.
I say "standard response" here because it's a bit of a no-brainer once one looks objectively at the material. It's rests upon the coarse assumption that IQ=intelligence though but, as this is an answer to that assumption, I would tend to leave it at that.

Here though, as in most of the more considered examinations of the subject, we have opened up intelligence to mean more than IQ. It has occurred to me that this can give second wind to that easily discarded white supremacy claim.
It could be said that the extremes of IQ both have drawbacks.. the lower one leading to poor functioning and the higher one leading to introversion, introspection, obsessiveness and narrow specialisation, all things that can be found to various degrees on the autism spectrum, the 'sweet-spot' lying somewhere in between. A canny (and more nuanced) white-supremacist, agreeing that whites tend to occupy this middle ground, might therefore find fresh justifications for that belief.

This would be a much harder one to argue against.
I'd like to take this in a slightly different direction, away from the question of white supremacy. (Not that I'm not interested in that topic -- I hate racism with a fiery passion, both the white supremacy kind and the "whites are evil" kind -- but it's a forum black hole as far a I'm concerned, it just sucks all the light out of most online conversations.) I'd like instead to discuss neuroplasticity, the idea that our brains can change substantially over time. Personal anecdote: I was once diagnosed with a very very high IQ. And, yes, it came with exactly the drawbacks you list: introversion, introspection, obsessiveness, and narrow specialization. Fortunately, there is something about my core personality that is intensely relational, and I came to understand how the way I was structuring my thinking was harming my overall functioning and making me very unhappy. I would go so far as to say that it was harming me spiritually. So I figured out a way to change. I haven't had my IQ tested since I was young, but I would predict that it has fallen substantially, and not just due to age. I am a correspondingly warmer, more relaxed, and with a wider set of interests and abilities. Also much happier. Point being: brains change over time. And they change in response to decisions that one can make, at the level of what I believe is a higher order of being.

We have a finite number of neurons and a finite number of possible connections that can exist among those neurons. However, there are a great many different configurations in network connectivity that are possible. Some of these configurations are heavily influenced by culture, and some of them may even be genetically determined (in a stochastic sense). However, it is possible to make decisions about how one wants ones brain to function. Will exists on a higher ontological order than mere cognition.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Unbelievably Heartbreaking

Post by jakell » Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:43 pm

You're right about it being a 'black hole', but in some environments more than others, it tends to be more a case of a previously laid minefield (rather than something naturally occuring) plus an allergic reaction if someone attempts to do some minesweeping. The question in my mind is whether one is prepared to tolerate intellectual booby traps and it seems to me that no decent analysis can be done when certain data points are considered out of bounds.
Because I've been dealing with WS's online for over a decade now, I'm well past any allergic reactions, to the extent where I can start to have some fun with their arguments. In the first instance here I was strawmanning the pure-IQ argument because, up till recently, that is the level they have mostly been operating at, I've only just noticed the more nuanced possibility, and here I am steelmanning** it instead. Whether an actual WS will take it up remains to be seen.

Regarding your dealing with high IQ as a handicap, I wouldn't leave things as vague as "something about my personality..", I don't see anything particularly mysterious there, that re-adjustment would be the other elements of intelligence working in tandem to (eventually) produce a rounded way of interacting with the world, something that hopefully develops as we grow older and wiser. I say this is where that neuroplasiticity comes in - ensuring that the personality remains flexible enough to adapt throughout life rather than becoming rigid.
I'm thinking about those Jews again now.. If a high IQ has certain drawbacks then why are the Ashkenazi Jews so successful in the real world, why don't they have a high proportion of mumbling autists? (maybe they do but they are kept in shuttered rooms). I would put this down to their particular culture being geared to making that IQ work in a social setting, whereas in other cultures it can make misfits.


** I got this phrase and concept from Mouthy Buddha where he talks of steelmanning Alt Right arguments in order to produce something worthy of opposition.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests