bofadeez

Oh you're right, it is very diverse in the NBA in terms of height and race. Not at all dominated by tall guys.

The Duke Power Company had as many black people in management as the NBA has short players.

Your argument is not even internally consistent.

Flynn effect operates on the assumption that intelligence is a valid and measurable metric, while you previously argued it was not. You selectively do believe in when it affirms your bias? Nice one. You think you know more about this than experts who study it. I see. That's enough of you lol.

So you're arguing it ws low IQ vs low IQ? Okay... Do you have a point? I understand that you're upset for some reasno.

Do you have a counter-point? You think the army is stupid and you know better? What is your point?

Would you prefer your child have an IQ of 120 or 80? If you have a preference, then you're morally inconsistent and don't even realize it? That must be a frustrating condition to go through life with? At least try to have a nice day in spite of your limitations. It's not your fault, we're all equal in God's eyes.

Are you Russian?

So the NBA is discriminating by using physical tests that require height?

Any kind of skill-based testing is obviously racist. Thanks for teaching me.

If you dismiss IQ research, you might as well disregard all of psychology. The psychologists who developed intelligence tests were pioneers in using the statistical methods (e.g. factor analysis) that now underpin the entire field. IQ is defined more precisely than almost any other psychological construct. Discarding it leaves you with poorly defined concepts and no clear way to handle them. [1]

[1] https://youtu.be/D7Kn5p7TP_Y?t=47m50s

In practice, intelligence tests don’t depend on the specific questions asked. If you let a group of people generate their own questions, pool them together, sample randomly, and then rank scores, the same individuals would tend to rise to the top. This is because people with higher general cognitive ability perform better across virtually any cognitive task, a phenomenon first documented by Spearman (1904) and repeatedly confirmed in psychometrics research (e.g., Jensen 1998; Deary 2012).

This is a talking point from an old university class lecture interpreting factor analytic data on personality and IQ [1].

In practice, intelligence tests don’t depend on the specific questions asked. If you let a group of people generate their own items, pool them together, sample randomly, and then rank scores, the same individuals would tend to rise to the top. The high IQ people would cluster toward the top with a correlation of 0.9. This is because people with higher general cognitive ability perform better across virtually any cognitive task, a phenomenon first documented by Spearman (1904) and repeatedly confirmed in psychometrics research (e.g., Jensen 1998; Deary 2012).

[1] https://youtu.be/D7Kn5p7TP_Y?t=47m50s

Around 50 million Americans fall below this threshold and are positively counterproductive for ANY military purpose, no matter how menial, no matter the shortage of recruits.

The US Army requires a minimum AFQT percentile of 31 for enlistment which, based on standard IQ norms (mean = 100, SD = 15), maps to roughly an IQ of 85 (one standard deviation below mean).

I.e. if you have an IQ below 85 you can't even sweep up the floor for the army

Of course it is[1]. Every single method used to screen a candidate is essentially testing for general mental ability. Being admitted to an Ivy League school is basically an IQ test. Interviews are basically IQ tests. Employers want to hire smart people. The fact that his is even a debate is crazy.

[1] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-10661-006

You can create a proxy for IQ by simply asking a group of people to invent their own questions, summing them together, randomly sampling from those questions, and then rank ordering the outcome. High IQ people will score in the top percentile for any set of questions. That's the whole point.

Psychometrics has clear value. Cognitive ability predicts academic/job performance (Schmidt & Hunter 1998, Psych Bull), and standardized tests reliably forecast college outcomes (Kuncel, Hezlett & Ones 2004, Science). Conscientiousness adds further predictive power (Poropat 2009, Psych Bull). The science is robust. The issue is the discomfort it causes, not lack of benefit or predictive power.

Agree. A lifetime license is the only model that makes sense for a wrapper. I wouldn't even pay $5/mo.

Yeah it's the opinion of the western world. "We hold these truths to be self evident" is the preamble.

These truths are not self evident to other cultures. Like yours

I think the role of government is limited to that of protecting constitutional rights of citizens. People in impoverished countries live with extended family and share income and get along just fine. We shouldn't violate rights of individuals to facilitate a welfare program. That should be handled by families, communities, religious institutions, etc.

Wages are not set by a company, they're set by the supply and demand of the market. Adding a minimum wage just criminalizes hiring anyone who is not productive enough to economically justify the minimum. It hurts unskilled poor people the most.

Like for example, your comment makes no sense. It reads like you got paid to write it. You're not contributing anything at all - just expressing that you feel something that most people would call "exaggerated" and "performative" and "embarrassing"

The PR only works on very old people and very low IQ people. It's just brute force at this point. Everyone knows what they're doing.

Everyone here can identify the fake comments. They think they're slick but it's just the Streisand effect at this point.

No this has been a talking point by top spacetime theorists for a very long time. E.g. https://www.cornell.edu/video/nima-arkani-hamed-spacetime-is...

I'm fine with it. I don't mind his "attacks" it's just an abstract intellectual topic. Not everyone is high in neuroticism. Some people learn from heated debate. You're only in favor of learning styles that make you feel good? We're debating in good spirit.

Why did you flag and remove that guy's responses? We're adults. We can handle it.

That's not what is being discussed though. You missed the point.

Yeah that's okay. You're suffering from a common thing. You just need therapy and then you'll learn you're good enough without accomplishments. Right now you think you need to accomplish things to have value. That's a really basic textbook mental illness caused by parental neglect. Usually something like intermittent random love / neglect. Study attachment theory and you'll learn all about it.

I'm glad you're taking time to learn about it. But all a state can do is either pass laws to protect natural rights, or they can pass laws to punish people with violence for exercising their natural rights.

All laws are backed by violence. That's called law enforcement.

Well that's not how it reads in historical documents to me. But you're free to have that opinion if you want to.

Alright, noted. I'm not writing a law to be interpreted - it's a comment.

I would tell the man that he should just take a class or read the Wikipedia on what a natural right is if he's so interested in it and using it to protect himself. I would tell him that commenting on it in this manner embarrasses himself and exposes that he has no education on the topic.

Any involuntary contract imposed on any individual is axiomatically immoral and unethical, as I've said below. There's no need to use such extreme examples.

Right. Just as it's not possible to discuss reinstitution of slavery. It's not open for dicussion.

A law cannot remove a natural right. A law can protect a natural right or oppress people by using violence against them if they exercise their natural right.

One stark example is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 in the United States. This law required that escaped slaves, even if they reached free states, be captured and returned to their owners. It went further by mandating that citizens and law enforcement in free states assist in this process, effectively making it illegal to help runaway slaves. Penalties for non-compliance were harsh—fines and imprisonment loomed over anyone who aided a fugitive.

By today’s standards, this is widely seen as abhorrent because it not only upheld slavery but forced people to actively participate in it, stripping away any moral or legal refuge for those seeking freedom. It’s a glaring relic of a time when human beings were legally treated as property, clashing hard with modern values of liberty and equality.