Should we go all brave new world based on Autism Level scores?

youtube.com/watch?v=lNAp7WDxrcU

should we go all brave new world based on Autism Level scores?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Nal9ICDwhgo
democracyatwork.info/eu_economics_taught_badly
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

No, we should go brave new world about a population's physical health and advance medicine. Your health is what defines you, not your intelligence. Health feeds into intelligence, etc.

inteligence correlates with what social class you end up with.

a low Autism Level person will never reach the elite ranks of society, even if born in elite families.

a high Autism Level person will end up as a high ranking individual, even if born in poverty.

So does health actually. In fact, health defines your social class more than intelligence really does.

not really.

you can't reach STEM degrees or PHD positions in STEM because you're healthy.

You don't have to attain them with great intelligence either, in America a degree and a major is a moot point if you can't afford your health insurance. It's all biopolitical nonsense that gripes over small factors of what men are rather than what men are capable of producing should they be healthy enough to do so.

There is particularly no reason to segregate a population based upon intelligence.

socioeconomic and health status don't improve your Autism Level.

I'm from a shitty family in the middle of a thirld world shithole and my race and family is utterly retarded (spics).

Yet, I clearly see I'm diferent because of biology.

and I'm poorer that most low Autism Level americans, even while my Autism Level is 120-130 range.

Sorry to hear you have an inferiority complex user

That's empirically false.

This is a goddamned cult.

not gonna make it

Yeah fuck this, what a fuck face.

They need to read The Ignorant Schoolmaster.

wow, I love to not being able to understand basic stats.

the richest black still score lower on SAT than the poorest white.

the Autism Level gap is bigger on richer people than on poorer people.

You have to go back

Why do you redditors always forget the ´´socio´´ part of ´´socioeconomics´´?

In our society, intelligence doesn't matter in the slightest. You could have the highest Autism Level and still end up in poverty.

Shocking, I know. Really hard to believe.

Cute chocolate anime girl

socioeconomics only explain less than 20% of inteligence.

you can't make a genius of some dumb rich kid.

wealth is an indication of your family inteligence average.

dumber people will get in lower paid jobs, while smarter families will work in higher payed jobs.

Reminder that our current president, arguably the most powerful single man in the world, the man at the very zenith of our social ladder, is a buffoon who had the dumb luck of being a billionaire's son, a man who's sole talent is bullshitting in the most obvious way possible and only got to where he is, even with daddy's money, because his fellow "elites" are even more moronic than he is.

...

You know, you're doing a terrible job arguing the point when you can't even fucking spell intelligence.

politics doesn't require high Autism Level.

high Autism Level people will work in higher paid jobs like banking, engineering, and will climb the corporate ladder, and will marry other high Autism Level archievers.

low Autism Level people will end up in trade jobs or welfare, outsourced to china.

not an english speaker.

That has nothing to do with the fact that intelligence has strong correlations with nutrition and economic status. If you weren't such a brainlet you'd be comparing the scores of rich black kids to poor black kids instead of parroting points you memorized from unsourced Holla Forums jpgs.

You're going to have a rude awakening once you actually have to start paying bills away from your mother's house.

STEM Degrees are not a certificate of universal success. Qualified people have lost their jobs, been ripped off, and their labor really not taken into account. For a very long time now.

No amount of Paul Mua'Dib Fear Is The Mind Killer Megamind bullshit can guarentee you an escape from poverty unless the family you live in is itself affluent enough to help with debt.

we're talking about race diferences.

the diference between rich white kids and rich black kids is bigger than the diference between poorer ones.

compare their wages, CS students make 70-80k and are at the top of the most paying jobs.

In fact, engineering makes all the top 10 best paying majors.

Being ruling class doesn't require high I.Q.

In fact, unless you're a STEMlord, I.Q. is almost wholly irrelevant. You're pushing a bunch of easily debunked garbage. You might as well push the Prosperity Gospel and claim that wealth is a sign of God's favor, at least it would be more internally consistent.

I'm trying to argue each profession has a range of optimal Autism Level.

So, the correct way to do it, is sort kids in terms of their Autism Level and lead kids into a caste system based on intelligence.

dumber kids will be trained in trades to be blue collar workers, while smarter kids get the chance to go to college and study there.

Do you honestly think this is universal across the board?

kek

What a stupid argument to make, go back to community college after your academic suspension is through.

Yes. You're confusing intelligence with knowledge. It isn't just genetics though. Genetics are responsible for 80% of intelligence, but the remaining 20% are nurture. I'd use "gifted" instead of "genius" for the smart nigger, since their odds of producing a genius are quite low.

Yours might as well be.

That's just a Karen edit. Choi is the real chocolate cutie.

Very cute!

This imho tbqh familam.

Did you just link a Zero Punctuation video and expect me to click on it?

"Meritocracy" isn't a meritocracy. Ask someone at the bottom or middle of Chinese society how they view "meritocracy" and try to get an honest answer. That's the line the CCP uses to justify its rule.

So much ideology it hurts. Jobs suck no matter what your vocation, it's why the term was named after a guy in the Bible who got screwed royally by God.

It's usually not the work itself but the people who make it hell, unless your work inherently involves something unsavory like killing and/or raping people for a living.

I've worked alongside people with actual mental retardation. Do you think they're happy with their lot in life? It's pretty hard not to recognize that you're being shit on if you have any kind of serious mental retardation. Something as simple as talking to such people can tell you that simple fact. I'm utterly flabbergasted that supposedly intelligent people keep writing and saying this shit in order to justify their hierarchical view of human society. It's up there with the Greek philosophers' natural slaves horseshit, but even that argument has more validity than this shit.

As for me, I don't care about working most menial jobs. If anything I find it better because I hate responsibility and I don't want to give a whole lot to capitalist society, or any society that upholds muh privileges of a ruling class. The only thing I care about is having everything I need to eat comfortably and play/make vidya games and shitpost against people who make stupid arguments. If I could make more money in a more prestigious position while pursuing my interests, great, but I don't expect respect nor desire it from people I already hate.

If I wanted the big big monies I wouldn't bother with learning some meritorious skill, I'd learn how to lick Porky's boot, because that's what is valuable in modern capitalist society - people whose salary depends on not knowing basic things and blind adherence to the system. The incompetent manager is paid more than the STEMlord who actually knows what they are doing. It's only different in a few professions as far as I know, and even then high-tier bankers are paid more than doctors. Of course to have a real in you need the right pedigree. Capitalism is a lot like feudalism, wealth and status inheritance is a big fucking deal.

Yup, the brain trust is really posting here.
You should seriously kys.

Yup, the brain trust is really posting here.
You should seriously kys.

this should not be a fucking argument among so-called "leftists."

IQ as a concept is purely reactionary, pseudoscientific garbage, and the implications of its logic can ONLY lead to eugenics.

ahistorical, unempirical, just fucking retarded. why is no one surprised that only the scummiest of reactionary 'scientists' still take Autism Level seriously today? it's always that same fucking stupidity "i dun care bout no political correctness, thems the facts" that they say.

it doesn't even make sense if you use a fraction of reasoning.

Yeah. Plus, Autism Level tests are going to be gamed by people who can predict what is going to be on the test. That's the only reason I scored so high, because my mother was deathly afraid of what would happen if I didn't score high enough and basically trained me to the test. I was lucky enough to have enough natural faculties to adapt or, quite literally, die. (Score too low and I'd probably be sent into foster care, and you know what happens to disabled children in foster care…)

Sadly, more than reactionary scientists take Autism Level seriously. Schools literally base your future on an Autism Level test you take when you're 3-5 years old, in combination with other metrics. Score too low, and you're automatically locked out of any advanced placement classes, score high enough and you get a mostly free ride unless you fuck up like I did.

Education and academia are just the most reactionary institutions, and imo if we do get a revolution the whole rotten system needs to be burned to the ground and we start over. Sadly my fear is that academia will just create a new ruling class after the capitalist mode of production shits the bed and we're back to another iteration of bullshit and forced ignorance.

That all said - I do think some things are hereditary, but that biologists, neurologists, and psychologists don't know enough about what they're doing, and are too blinded by ideology, to make qualified judgements. But like you say, the only implications of the logic are eugenics and ideology, and systems like academia exist to perpetuate themselves as a power structure. Finally, at the end of the day, two things remain true; why does it matter that people are distinct from each other, and whatever differences exist in general intelligence among the human population are dwarved by the possibility of bio-engineering, artificial intelligence, and synthetic brains / brain attachments that would expand human abilities far beyond their "natural" limits, and such concepts are already within the realm of what we know can happen. In both instances, the only arguments for a hierarchy based on Autism Level or "merit" are arguments for forced ignorance and arguments for power for power's sake - so basically, literal retardation.

Alright anons, even if Autism Level tests are bunk, you have to admit that genetics plays a large part intelligence. You can't teach a goldfish to play the tuba, no matter how nutritiously you feed it. A down-syndrome person will always be less intelligent than they would have been with a regular chromosome count.

Do you even fucking read? There's a difference between the concept of hereditary general intelligence, and a society deciding to build a forcible hierarchy of who has power based on a test which is woefully inaccurate at best. And as I said, developments in bio-engineering, artificial intelligence, synthetic brains, and a better understanding of psychology would outweigh any genetic predispositions if applied properly and universally. Also, knowledge is not intelligence and knowledge is not mystical. Also, you haven't give a single good reason why there ought to be a hierarchy of intelligence and you can't offer one because you're a fucking idiot. Even the actual retards I worked with wouldn't come up with your asinine arguments.

science nowdays has become so complex and convoluted that you need a whole team of highly educated not necessarilly genial people to make a major discovery, there is no reason to limit peolple from reaching the required expertise for high end academic work, people who are not fit will just quit along the way. this whole debate is pointless for socialism really.

I think in order to really move along science, the academic institutions need to be opened up, and academics shouldn't be cloistered into small groups where they argue about the number of angels that can fit on a pinhead. That's how I feel a lot of disciplines have come to in modern academia, and it's leading people down some dead-ends. For example, economics - Marx and Engels basically BTFO out of classical economics (even tho Capital is borrowing from that tradition in its critique), and it's not until very recently that some academics are reviving classical economics and adapting it to the present situation. The whole neoclassical marginalist revolution and much of the work in economics has been pretty shitty, despite some valiant efforts, because it's become less about building a coherent theory of what actually happens and more about building an ideological framework for how the free market ought to work, and trying to read tea leaves to predict the future.

Anyway, I believe with the internet and open access to scientific texts and research results, the work of compiling a report (or reports) can be done by thousands or even millions instead of a small team. While in practice the reports would be written by small teams working in research labs who know the science (working with other teams in similar research labs), the raw data to corroborate those reports would be a matter of public knowledge and reports can't just fudge the numbers unless the data gathering methodology is flawed. And, if some jagoff autodidact or know-it-all wants to weigh in, they can. Science shouldn't be a fucking institution or dogma from on high.

I actually disagree (I think economics is the exception that proves the rule, actually). I think academia is getting more and more open. There are more people collaborating from different disciplines on really difficult problems.

Economics is bad right now because there's little of this interdisciplinary work in mainstream economics. Economists think they have a monopoly on knowledge and approach problems in other fields of study without understanding those fields and shit them up (biology, psychology, sociology, etc. are all examples of this).

However, head into a biology lab some time. My lab has two biologists, a CS person, a philosopher, two math people, among others. There are more private corporation and research partnerships than ever (something I would consider neutral in effect).

Science shouldn't be an ivory tower, but remember, someone who is a trained biologist has a higher probability of understanding the nuances of doing work in that field; how to get correct results, and how to interpret them. That's why research happens in academia–there's a bunch of highly trained people who have a lot of time to spend on producing research, and they are incentivized to produce research to advance their career. Interdisciplinary research is huge right now and is only going to get bigger as the depth of problems get more complex. Climate change models are a really good example of this–you need biologists, meteorologists, computer science, math, physics, etc. people to collaborate together. They each bring their specific domain expertise to a problem. Naturally, a problem like climate change has lots of implications for not only public institutions (hence why NOAA and other government organizations collaborate frequently with academic researchers) but also private industry (evil ag companies among others).

I'm not sure where joe shmoe fits in here. Yes, open access is obviously important (and more people are realizing this an publishing their work in open access journals) but I'm skeptical that someone who doesn't have academic training on research can really contribute in a meaningful way. Even from a data analysis perspective, you often receive messy, incomplete data that requires a lot of context to be able to interpret, understand, visualize, and use that data. You only get that from being in a community of researchers who are working on similar problems.

What is you're lQ level?

Mine is 141

Please get the joke :c

Economics is bad because their departments are funded by porkies with a stake in the game who influence what gets taught and who gets hired. Wolff did a good interview on this subject on Economic Update a couple months ago.

That's also true, but a symptom of that is that economists have a monolithic view of the world and are just bickering over the details.

Here it is, interview starts at 29:50:

democracyatwork.info/eu_economics_taught_badly

my god

if I,Q, is so important then why must jews be removed? since they have the highest shouldnt they just lead humanity at that point?

Because by I.Q. he literally means Autism Level.

That's why I'm really big on the idea of an interdisciplinary approach being more common, rather than overspecialization of the sciences. I get that there is a huge body of knowledge that probably requires specialization at the moment, but in the future perhaps a general base of knowledge or a general method of learning would allow the average bum to know at least a little bit more about the topic, and there would be at least less ignorance (for example, almost everyone would be able to call bullshit on things which are obviously bullshit, and there would be fewer people believing in Austrian School bullshit).

I guess I have some bias because I had to learn shit on my own and have no credential to show for it, but I remember the way kids in my generation were expected to learn things and wondered how anyone could learn that way. I also question the legitimacy of institutions which as far as I can tell exist to weed out the ruling class, force the educated into debt peonage, and where most students spend more time partying than anything else. I've never cared much for the culture, the hierarchy, the cheating and lying that go into "merit"-based institutions, but right now they are an unfortunate necessity.

Where Joe fits into all of this is that, I would hope, there is a better method of learning and teaching than whatever the fuck we have going now, because it's going to be necessary if this worker self-management thing is going to work; and I don't think it is necessarily a matter of general intelligence / I.Q. so much as it is the approach in how people apply knowledge and acquire knowledge. Joe probably isn't making great contributions to cutting-edge theoretical physics, but he ought to be able to apply what is already known should the need arise rather than be overly dependent on an expert.

That's right, and you don't seem to understand it, seeing that you're denying the former despite decades of scientific evidence.

It's one of the best and most widely tested and proven tools psychology has invented. (Whether that statement reflects on psychology's overall inadequacy more than on the test's usefulness is irrelevant.) It works. It's meaningful. It's not 100% accurate because duh, the world is extremely complex.

Of course there fucking shouldn't. The problem is, there is one. So what you're going to do, keep pretending it's not happening, or that it's happening due to some other, made-up reasons?

There may be a correlation between intelligence and income, for sure, but I have yet to see any evidence that indicates that this relationship is causal. If anything, it's the other way around. The wealthier you are, the more resources can be dedicated to you to ensure you have a quality education, which would lead to the individual scoring higher in almost all respects. Furthermore, intelligence quotients above a certain level only really indicated how quickly one notices patters, and usually these distinctions are made on the basis of simple patters by seconds, making the difference in the long term negligible. This would indicate that a lower I.Q. individual would simply need to work harder to achieve a similar level of mastery as someone with a higher score, and so it would become even clearer that the defining characteristic is your socio-economic condition.

I mean really, who's going to be more successful, a girl with an Autism Level of 140 living in the ghetto with a prostitute mom and a father in jail, or a millionaire's son with an Autism Level of 98?

Your perspective is too simplistic to be meaningful.

Obviously Autism Level does not equal instantaneous success. It's more like a slow sorting over time. An 140 Autism Level person is more likely to go up the ladder, then their >120 Autism Level children are again more likely to go up the ladder (and conversely, an Autism Level 90 upper class twat is more likely to lose his fortune and leave his children with lower status) and after a few generations you do end up with society stratified by intelligence.

But you know what? The system is not made unfair by differences in intelligence, nor do differences in intelligence cause it to happen in the first place. It's wrong because it's oppressive, exploitative and hierarchical, not because intelligent people happen to navigate it better than dumber ones.

Irony.

Okay, so you won't learn how to fucking read. Go back to pol, a cancerous place where you belong.

It's really a feedback loop. Children with higher I.Q. are typically tested for giftedness at school, who are given muh privileged positions in the social hierarchy of students, which means they receive more education and effort, while children with average I.Q. are left more or less to their own devices and expected to go into the military or some shit.
Then, children of wealthy parents probably know how to game the test better, so they would score marginally higher than a child of the same "real" I.Q. without those advantages. Autism Level tests - and this is something psychologists are well aware of - can have variance from test to test depending on circumstances.
Generally, in societies where universal education and I.Q. testing are the norm, someone who tests at 140 who isn't a fluke is going to be given all sorts of advantages over someone who tests at 90. Schools, like all academia, are self-perpetuating institutions.

Does this always translate to a straight correlation between I.Q. and success? Of course not, there are outliers like myself, and the wealthy are generally shielded from I.Q. differences unless they are considerably low-functioning. But effectively, people with higher I.Q. succeed because society wants them to succeed, and it's hard to take a look at how K-12 operates and pretend that everyone is treated equally. Of course that's not the case - the whole point of I.Q. testing for giftedness is that the planners of our society don't want to ship potential engineers and physicists to the meat grinder. This was something the ruling class was painfully aware of during and after WW1, and sought to prevent in the future.

Aside from testing for giftedness, I.Q. testing is - in theory - supposed to test for deficits in less functioning people, and try to figure out areas where special assistance is needed. In practice, though, special education departments are dumping grounds for the lowest of the low, and there are perverse funding incentives for schools to list so many kids as defective while "educating" them. The whole point of the sped student's presence in school is to be a focal point of mockery and contempt, and teachers encourage students to attack sped students as a matter of course. Thus, the same feedback loop is in effect at the bottom of the social ladder - low I.Q. people fail because, essentially, society wants them to fail, in order to prove a point.

Now there are real differences that do matter, that would make someone who is smarter succeed more, and someone who is challenged fail more, but in a more "fair" society that didn't distinguish and form deliberate hierarchies at an early age, they would probably be less pronounced, at least in the average and above range.

Mein gott. You'd be surprised at that.

You need to go out more.

What level of ideology are you even on right now? Literally how ignorant and naive can one be?

It's a shitposter. What else can you expect?

The Social Darwinist bullshit is flawed on so many levels. In order for Social Darwinism to be a coherent ideology, you'd have to look at humans as atomized agents, or as competing Races/Species in nature. But, anyone who has studied human institutions, who studies who and what wields real power in human society, can tell you that institutions are generally not biological in nature. The capitalist firm, the state (of any sort), religion, universities, all of these are institutions that exist and seek to perpetuate themselves, and they make artificial selections for the stability of their power structure all of the time. Natural selection only concerns individual organisms or whole species' survival. Nor does natural selection care about which organism/species is "better" by some metric you've invented - all natural selection states is that the organism/species best suited to the environment will tend to flourish. But, as we've established, natural selection (mostly) ceases to be operative between humans when man is capable of altering the environment consciously, and when non-biological institutions seek to perpetuate themselves. What you end up with, then, with Social Darwinism is a theory that power perpetuates itself, and that power ought to perpetuate itself because it ought to. The former doesn't require any biological explanation or memetic explanation and would be obvious to anyone who's lived in civilized society, the latter is just a retarded tautology.
Also, institutions whatever their pretensions are not eternal. Without civilized society and power structures where man oppresses man, high general intelligence (by the standards that exist among living humans) doesn't do much more for you than average general intelligence. It's precisely because of self-perpetuating social institutions (which would include any abstract notions of "race-identity" or "species-identity" as something to defend) that general intelligence plays much of a role between humans.