Skip Navigation

User banner
Posts
10
Comments
767
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • "I went to school paid for by property taxes, but I don't think anybody else should because I obviously learned nothing about civics and society when I went to my property tax-funded school."

    I'm not sure if it's possible to come across as more entitled, insular and anti-social than your hot take but I'm sure you'll give it the old college tries in responses here.

  • It was quoted just a bit above you, dude:

    7.0: The website and the agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Republic of Finland Suomen.

  • I get that all the time. It amused me greatly until the day I found out I can turn off the Fantasy Internet Points entirely. Now I have no idea if my votes are up or down or sideways.

    And I don't care.

  • Don't forget his direct competition in China: electrical vehicle manufacturers BYD Auto (2003) and XPeng (2014). BYD outsells all of Tesla's worldwide sales and XPeng is an up-and-comer that will likely exceed Tesla's domestic sales by the end of 2024.

  • IQ tests can be studied for. Someone taking an IQ test cold will get a lower score than that same person taking just a second test after knowing how the IQ test works. Further, you can actually train for higher IQ scores. This kind of indicates that there is a measurable learned skill component in this "metric". Teasing that learned component out from something intrinsic (and it's utterly ludicrous, incidentally, to conceive of "intelligence" as a single thing that can be boiled down into a single number!) is a problem that has thus far proved intractable.

    IQ tests have major cultural components. IQ tests made for Chinese people (culturally Chinese, not ethnically) are different from those made for American people which are again different from those made for German people. Culture is not intrinsic to the brain, so again it seems IQ is not measuring something intrinsic. It is measuring something related to its cultural milieu.

    IQ test results vary by the quality of education available. People who were privileged enough to have good schools, private supplemental tutoring, etc. get higher IQ scores than people whose background was shit neighbourhoods with terrible schooling and no money for extra tutoring. Again, this strongly indicates that IQ is not intrinsic but at least partially cultural and educated (and a rather large part).

    IQ numbers have been rising over time to the point that someone who got an IQ score of 140 in the 1970s would score as a borderline idiot today. Judging by the behaviour of people and their proclivity to believe stupid things, there has been no real change in actual ability to think and process information over that time (if anything it might be a negative trend, given American politics in particular!). Yet if there wasn't a built-in corrective factor applied that changes each year IQ scores would be rocketing skyward. Again this hints at something learned, and not intrinsic.

    So IQ measures something ... but nobody can say what it is. The only thing we can know for certain is that IQ tests measure with 100% accuracy your ability to write IQ tests.

    So that's four non-ideological reasons to be suspicious of IQ tests. Please feel free to dismiss this as "naive" or "ignorant" or "ideological" if you wish; it will strongly show your own ideology.

    IQ has its uses, but sadly those uses aren't the ones commonly associated with it. (The original use that proto-IQ tests were intended for were to highlight students who were struggling and needed extra assistance, a role in which they were nearly perfect.) But then the US Army latched onto it as a measurement of "intelligence" and things went to Hell almost immediately thereafter.

  • Don't stop with Europe, Dilbert Stark! Get out of Africa, Asia, South America, Oceania, and eventually North America as well!

  • I’ve seen this repeated ad nauseam on reddit in any slightly relevant threads, but it seems completely unfounded. Psychometrics is one of the subfields of psychology that doesn’t suffer from an apocalyptic replication crysis, like for example social psychology, and there’s decades of research on IQ. Please note that I’m not saying that IQ is the most important measure of a person or anything like that, but it’s a pretty good metric that demonstrably correlates to/predicts a lot of things with reasonable confidence.

    The problem is that this correlates to/predicts outcomes in systems predicated on ... IQ.

    "IQ correlates to success in careers," for example. Your career path and ensuing choices in your life is heavily influenced by your SAT scores if you're in the USA. And SAT scores are ...

    ... drum roll ...

    ... basically just IQ tests. So strangely enough, in a system that explicitly filters based on IQ, a high IQ correlates with success within the system. And most other nations that have modern educational infrastructure have some form of test which is IQ-adjascent: China's is even worse than the SAT, for example, while, say, Canada's system kind of smears out and obfuscates the IQ component ... but it's still very much a part of things.

  • No, the peak movie for pseudo-intellectuals is The Matrix.

  • You think NTP servers are synched by ... an audio time check?

  • Not even if the Nazi in question is the hottest woman in all of history. Ew.

  • That is a valid viewpoint.

    It's not mine.

    So I turn off the votes view. I have no idea if my votes are up or down. And I don't care. I love having that choice too!

  • Now that one does look interesting. I'll have to wait for it to show up on my usual sites though: it's not the kind of movie that will wind up in theatres here.

  • Religion itself is the organized practice by which worshipers converge to worship a god or to study and practice the supernatural.

    Man is 儒教 going to fuck with your head.

  • Atheism is not a religion. It’s the idea that there are no gods, and in most cases no religion follows.

    The notion that "atheism is a religion" is so comical that I'd love to watch the brain sprain when people who spout that nonsense come across a legit, non-parody, atheistic religion.

    So I'm not talking about the Temple of Satan types. Nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster types. Nor the myriad of other spoof religions. I'm talking a serious religion with a long history (it's older than Christianity) that is at the very least agnostic if not flat-out atheistic¹: 儒教 (which you'd know as Confucianism).

    So here we have a religion that is either agnostic or atheistic. Kind of hinting that atheism and religion are separate axes.


    ¹ "You are not yet able to serve men, how can you serve spirits?" was 孔夫子's (Confucius') stance on paying homage to gods.

  • Daoism. Buddhism. That's two off the top of my head. (Both, in fact, don't care if you participate in other religions' rites and ceremonies.)

    You'll find that most pantheistic, animistic, and shamanistic religions aren't as bigoted as the Abrahamic faiths tend to be (which is the faith family most westerners think of as "religions").

  • That isn't what OP said, however. This is what was said:

    If your religion is atheism, that’s perfectly valid.

  • I'll agree that Oreos in North America taste like shit. They have so much sugar in them, even the cookie part, that they actively make my teeth hurt.

    Here in China the formula is changed. The filling is pretty much the same, but the cookie part has a whole lot less sugar in it, giving it a flavour that I can actually enjoy. (I don't eat them often because there's many far better things to eat, but every so often I'll grab a pack of Oreos...something I never did in Canada.)

  • "I moved to X because Y has a name that reminds me of someone I don't like for bogus reasons and that made me flap my flabby arms in outrage and move on!"