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

They don't think these parents can responsibly and intelligently raise their own offspring, but they are certainly responsible and intelligent enough to vote

 

It's incredible how short sighted the average Leftie is.

Imagine if Govts actually did what they suggest, and instead of encouraging parents to take responsibility, declared that no parent need take responsibility for their own children. How long would it be before millions more didn't even bother even trying? And they regard this as a solution. For reals.

 

The politics of helplessness

 

It's tied to their racism and elitism. White Progressives are desperate to maintain "Overseer" rank, so insist on perpetuating helplessness and dependence. They live in terror of losing the power to decide how the working classes and the coloured folk should think/live. And they ALWAYS decide that such people should think and live helplessly.

So not shortsighted at all, when it comes to the top brass. Sadly, the rubes who subscribe to White Progressivism are simply shortsighted. It's a vanity driven position, so signalling virtue is the only thing that matters, and only the here and now in which it's happening, matters.

 

They create the justifications for the people's desire of more free stuff

 

I would personally like to see welfare for single parents reversed. What I mean by that is, for each child born to a welfare recipient, that welfare is reduced. I suspect that that alone, would dramatically reduce the number of voluntary single parent households.

In an ideal world, there'd also be a law which deems children a parents' financial responsibility until age 22 (the average age for completion of college education). If parents can't or won't pay for the upkeep of their child, they would be criminally charged.

Since children are optional, there is no compulsion or cruelty in these kinds of laws. They're more like drink driving laws, which no one can argue with.

 

[

Should the child give up it's right to vote until age 22 and wave parental responsibility for not obeying the parents?

 

I don't believe any compunctions should fall upon the child, no. It's not especially relevant to laws and obligations on parents.

 

I wouldn't advocate putting any new requirements on the parents of an adult. This reinforces their inability to take responsibility for their own offspring

 

IQ tests reflect far more than education. There are IQ tests for first graders. Some kids get 140+ and some are below 85. That's well before they're educated. It's a measure of innate intelligence.

 

actually the relevance of iq tests are an over hyped myth, culturally sensitive,motivation sensitive, doesn't accurately measure intelligence, generally badly misunderstood...but the public demands it, the tests do a poor job of measuring intelligence...

and a childs intelligence isn't fixed it increases as they age with exposure to a enriched learning environments, so what they score as a first grader isn't that significant...

 

Totally correct. As I learned in a doctoral level class on educational testing--an IQ test measures what IQ tests measure. There is no absolute thing known as IQ.

 

Sad, but probably true. The welfare reduction (with each baby) should work well, though.

 

Today ditches are dug with machinery, operated by people trained in their use. There's very little need for actual ditch diggers.

 

I like that

 

Yes, the days of physical labor on construction sites is long over

 

Aside from that excellent point, it would be a travesty to underestimate the potential of a person at any age based on a score of 85 on an IQ test.

A person with innate ability in certain areas might accomplish certain tasks more efficiently. However, people are capable of finding ways to compensate for their weaknesses and increase their abilities through perseverance.

Who is to say that someone with a lower IQ can't be as successful as a person with a higher IQ? Let's not overestimate tests that are at best an imperfect attempt to measure intelligence.

Eugenics has been practiced in not only unethical but egregiously immoral ways, throughout history. Let's never repeat such lowbrow atrocities, because of a feigned belief in superiority.

 

Great argument for drastically cutting welfare.
Everyone is capable of overcoming adversity, if they have to.

 

I gather you never been on a construction site

 

Maybe the poster who said we have machines for digging ditches now?

 

no one has dug a ditch by hand in 60-70 years probably before I was born and that was far too long ago...I've only been out of the construction world due to medical issues for three years it's as physical as it's ever been in my lifetime

 

That's not what the poster was implying.
He was implying that the economy had no need for "ditch diggers" since we have machines for that. You and I both know that the equivalent of "ditch digger" is still necessary.
His post was silliness

 

Frankly, I don't think "IQ" is necessarily the only telling reference regarding a person's ability.

All it shows is a mastery of various subjects in a catalog fashion. The most important thinkers in the past have not been that "brilliant", but what they wrote made sense. Which is why it was repeated, and with the printing-press, became part and parcel "human knowledge".

I very much agree with the above. A high-IQ is indicative of mental ability but it is "circumstance" that determines far more often "outcomes".

For instance: take Google. Two "kids" at Stanford decided to apply a well-known and well-used technology to help them file words-connected-to-texts in such a manner that they could refer to each occasion where such words were found. No Big Deal even in the late 1990s, the technology to do so had been around for a while.

But they were working in a context where the ability to ACCESS such texts wherever they were found in the right format was mostly evolved by "Sir Tim" at a European research instituted where he was doing just that - arranging research-subjects such that the texts could be retrieved.

Which he succeeded at doing and thereupon he initiated the technique on the ARPANet (the only large information-network employed at the time); and - lo and behold - the "internet" was off and running.

Tim is not a multi-billionaire, but the two kids at Stanford who started Google did become so.

Thus, the lesson of the story is simple: One idea by one person is often not enough for it to be adopted largely by an entire population. It takes others to complete the very complex process of finding and developing the process that is adopted generally by either a group of people (a business) or an entire population ...

 

Well, there is an absolute-thing known as "intelligence". That function is innate to human-beings, some excelling in its exercise better or more than others.

How it is employed in an individual and then within a group of individuals is however somewhat lesser known. Ideas of considerable intelligence sometimes take a good long time to find themselves applied generally within a population ...

 

There isn't an absolute thing called intelligence. There are a bunch of inter-related traits that make up what we think of as intelligence, but there is no clearly measurable thing called intelligence.