- Sep 16, 2014
- United States
Now say you have an ethnic population that, by and large, lives in densely populated areas with little to no vegetation and large amounts of air and noise pollution.No-one was. You're the one who brought language into this.
In the strictest sense, almost certainly the Olympians. If you're pitching people with a physical disability against those without, the ones without are almost certainly going to win. That's why you don't get Olympians taking part in the Paralympics and vice versa (maybe there's some exception somewhere, I dunno).
If you want to gauge who's more meritocratic in a comparative sense, then that may be possible, but it's academic, since they're separate events. They're two different 'tests.' And even if the Paralympian does better comparatively than the Olympian, they're still not going to be able to do a lot of things that the Olympian can.
I'm a racist for saying IQ exists. Um, okay...
First, that video refers to the Bell Curve. I'm not talking about the Bell Curve, I'm talking about IQ, which was conceptualized well before the Bell Curve was published. That IQ has been used poorly in the past doesn't invalidate it. You yourself brought up vaccine hoaxes, IIRC.
Second, I'm not watching a video that's 2 hours and 40 minutes long. Call that a win if you want, but I draw the line there. If there's a publication that debunks the entire idea of IQ, I'm sure you can find it from a source outside a talking skull.
Third, I'm aware of the issues with IQ tests...
The assessments have been around for over 100 years. Experts say they’ve been plagued by bias, but still have some merit.www.discovermagazine.com
But they absolutely have predictive possibility...
And can be both adversely and positively affected by environment.
Research also found lower levels of difficult behaviour in rich and poor neighbourhoodswww.theguardian.com
Is there a chance that said ethnic population might need different teaching methods than more affluent groups less exposed to pollution?
And if a member of said ethnic group with a debuff to their IQ who is also running into those problems that IQ supposedly predicts competes with somebody without those problems and who has many other advantages besides and gets within spitting distance on your "objective" test, isn't that worth a few bonus points? I mean, running a longer race with an arm tied behind your back and still being competitive has to be worth something if we are comparing Merit, right?
Assuming, of course, that IQ is a useful measure when applied to general society instead of being a relative measure in certain circumstances regarding comparing individual members of small homogeneous groups. Or to put it more bluntly, the more varied the people you try and assign an IQ number to, the more bullshit it is, because the more you have to adapt the test, the less you are measuring the same thing. If you give two different people two different tests, then it's a fool's errand to compare the two scores and you're an idiot for trying. At the very least, it's not an objective measure.
IQ tests were a fine measurement when it was a French dude using them to identify which French school kids were learning best in their respective classes. Everything since then has been subjective bullshit and probably shouldn't be the hill that somebody who believes in objective truth ends up dying on. Mostly because we still aren't sure what, if anything, is actually getting measured. It's subjective beliefs and guesswork, and too often used for nefarious purposes to boot.