10% of the population has an IQ lower than 83, what this means

Our system requires all but the most disadvantaged to keep trying. Those of us for whom it is most difficult are called pluggers or over-achievers.

No one else really owes any of us a free ride--but not exporting the jobs for many of us is a political issue, and right now Globalists and Progressives are on the wrong side of that.

 

No, it is not the least bit "vague". Yes, it is is indicative of resident intelligence in the individual. Is it very accurate? Likely lot, but neither does that matter. It should NOT be employed in any usage regarding acceptation to whatsoever program (education or job) - where "track-record" is a far better element.

Intelligence is just one indicator of latent "know-how" in a person. Results are a far better indicator of "capacity to get the job done" ...

 

And most people do. Anonymity has its advantages even falsely ...

 

Agreed!

Intelligence is measurable, but not that interesting as a "measure". Intelligence, to my mind and in this present circumstance, is demonstrated by people who can read the data and understand that the US is THE world's most Unfair Nation.

Meaning that they do not dismiss Picketty's work as a "fluke" - because based upon that evidence Americans should be making for themselves are far better country in which to live. (As the European Union has done since WW2 ...)

 

I beg to differ. Look up the meaning in any dictionary.

Then move on, because this discussion regarding the "true meaning" of the word has become laughable ...

 

Great definition for "know-how" - which is the ability (or intelligence) to create; whether that creation be an object or an idea. Intelligence usually refers to the latter process, but they are both mental capacities of an individual ...

 

Go take two kids (male or female) and measure their "intelligence" at the age of six. Educate one but not the other and give both IQ-exams.

Tell us what the results show ...

(I'm waiting with bated breath!)

 

take those two kids educate one in a western school system and educate the other survival in the amazon rain forest, one is illiterate the other isn't, how would you test them. They could be equally intelligent but how do you find a common baseline to confirm that, two vastly different educational systems only relevant in their own environments.

 

You are exaggerating somewhat the conditional requirements. Nice try, wrong results. The socioeconomic context must be similar in both cases for any real comparability.

Which is why one can compare the EU and the US in terms of "IQ". But not the EU and, say, Zambia.

Let's say we did compare two kids, one from France (where I live) and the other from Zambia.

And we ask the two to forage in the Zambian jungle. Who do you think is going to bring in the most meat?

MY POINT: Socioeconomic contexts are "everything". They decide who gets what and who gets much more than others. And, for the most part, those with higher levels of education (meaning, yes, IQ) get more of the income a market-economy generates.

Were you to compare the Income and IQ, I suspect that you'd find the most income is gained in the higher IQs. From here: Vox - IQ, explained in 9 charts - excerpt:

 

yes which is exactly my point,I think we agree... those extreme differences can often be found within a country like Brazil or even the Canada and the USA, social context is very important...

social or economic success is relative to the society or environment one lives... so how can we accurately compare the relative intelligence of two people from vastly different environments? even when populations are technically/educationally relatively similar, cultural importance to education may be very different...IQ results are at best a gauge of how an individual may do at tasks that we deem important in our society...which is why my point of a rain forest dweller whose entire education revolves around observation and memory, his/her entire upbringing is devoted to survival and providing for their family, not to graduate from a tertiary education ...the end goal may ultimately be the same but success is measured differently

 

contradiction?

 

It may be that they don't believe in IQ (as in, a fixed state, present at birth). Which is the intelligent ( )position.

 

It's not that kind of 'education' which builds intelligence. It's the 'education' experienced in the home from day one.

 

I don't know that I've heard anyone argue that IQ is a fixed state, present at birth. However it's a useful metric for school aged children, along with other standardized testing.

 

We agree on that. I'm a big believer in testing throughout school and college years.

PS: there are plenty of 'eugenics' types who believe it's a fixed state, like the colour of your eyes.

 

probably the high carb low fat diets is lowering Americans IQ scores

 

agree, a healthy environment both mentally and physically when a child is little is very important

 

No--the people most affected should decide-- but society at large should not pay the price for bad reproductive decisions,

 

well yes both would begin from day one, but we formalize education from about age 5....a child in the jungle is home schooled

 

society at large does pay for bad decisions with crime and poverty... those people don't go away just because you think there's an imaginary bubble to shield you from them...

 

I find it interesting to see the number of liberals responding positively to this thread asking for this to define the need for use of population controls etc to solve this distribution. This is stunning. These are the same folks who would want showers with cyanide flowing from the pipes....

 

Liberals of the past supported eugenics in the 20’s before Hitler made it popular with the press.

 

Eugenics was the AGW of it's day with the same demographics....

 

The truly ironic thing about where this finds support within the progressive congress is these are the same folks who would march for animal rights, and yet, at the same time, advocate the genocide of the ages offing the intellectually challenged in our species. Makes you wonder what their priorities really are...

 

Virtue signalling.