Dead Stupid
Or... Throw Ug Under the Elephant:
Intelligence being the primary adaptive trait of the human species, this makes perfect sense. Statistically, more stupid than smart people will be eaten by lions -- or translated into the modern world, the idiots are more likely to car surf.
So far, so good... Then the author of the article demonstrates why journalists dwell in the lower fiftieth percentile of the intelligence spectrum:
NO. WRONG. THIS IS INCORRECT. BAD MONKEY.
The intelligence quotient testing system is by design an absolute evaluative scale; that is, it's written in such a way that education does not bias the results. Otherwise it would be called a graduation test. But I cannot entirely blame the journalist, however emotionally satisfying that may be, as he was led to his "conclusion":
NO. WRONG. THIS IS INCORRECT. VERY BAD MONKEY. GO TO THE CORNER.
By definition it is impossible for education to alter IQ. They are two related but quantifiably separate concepts. A person with a 140 IQ is statistically more likely to absorb any given value "x" out of a course of instruction than a person with a 110 IQ. Does that mean that if both persons are exposed to the same amount "x" of education, the IQ of the person previously testing at the 110 mark is raised to 110+x?
NO, it does not.
It's a direct and absolute proportionality. In mathematics, the relationship is expressed thus:
|(140+x)| ∝ |(110+x)|
Don't get overwrought about my questionable use of absolutes, math geeks. I am making the point that whether a person passes or fails a course -- i.e., positive or negative results -- the IQ remains the same. (All of that math stuff was just to throw the art majors off the scent, by the way. I heard their bells tinkling in the background. It's like spraying vinegar on a cat when it gets too close to your car.)
But is this idea really that difficult to comprehend, or is it just another example of social engineering? Here is what used to be called "a quantum leap of logic*" before the people who failed ninth-grade bonehead science took over the reins of Western society:
Multiple flawed studies do not combine to create a positive outcome. If anything, they magnify social entropy. No matter, though; it's all in the name of Bettering Mankind, so it's okay. Right?
Time for another Heinleinism:
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."
---
* - A "quantum leap" is not what many people think; it has nothing to do with distance or quantity. It's the lay description for an instantaneous and non-logical state change -- which is precisely why leftists and social engineers don't understand it: they ARE a quantum leap.
High IQ Linked To Reduced Risk Of Death
Intelligence being the primary adaptive trait of the human species, this makes perfect sense. Statistically, more stupid than smart people will be eaten by lions -- or translated into the modern world, the idiots are more likely to car surf.
So far, so good... Then the author of the article demonstrates why journalists dwell in the lower fiftieth percentile of the intelligence spectrum:
A study of one million Swedish men has revealed a strong link between cognitive ability and the risk of death, suggesting that government initiatives to increase education opportunities may also have health benefits.
NO. WRONG. THIS IS INCORRECT. BAD MONKEY.
The intelligence quotient testing system is by design an absolute evaluative scale; that is, it's written in such a way that education does not bias the results. Otherwise it would be called a graduation test. But I cannot entirely blame the journalist, however emotionally satisfying that may be, as he was led to his "conclusion":
Previous studies have suggested that preschool education programmes and better nourishment can raise IQ scores.
NO. WRONG. THIS IS INCORRECT. VERY BAD MONKEY. GO TO THE CORNER.
By definition it is impossible for education to alter IQ. They are two related but quantifiably separate concepts. A person with a 140 IQ is statistically more likely to absorb any given value "x" out of a course of instruction than a person with a 110 IQ. Does that mean that if both persons are exposed to the same amount "x" of education, the IQ of the person previously testing at the 110 mark is raised to 110+x?
NO, it does not.
It's a direct and absolute proportionality. In mathematics, the relationship is expressed thus:
|(140+x)| ∝ |(110+x)|
Don't get overwrought about my questionable use of absolutes, math geeks. I am making the point that whether a person passes or fails a course -- i.e., positive or negative results -- the IQ remains the same. (All of that math stuff was just to throw the art majors off the scent, by the way. I heard their bells tinkling in the background. It's like spraying vinegar on a cat when it gets too close to your car.)
But is this idea really that difficult to comprehend, or is it just another example of social engineering? Here is what used to be called "a quantum leap of logic*" before the people who failed ninth-grade bonehead science took over the reins of Western society:
The study suggests this may also have previously unforeseen health benefits, further validating government efforts to improve living conditions and education.
Multiple flawed studies do not combine to create a positive outcome. If anything, they magnify social entropy. No matter, though; it's all in the name of Bettering Mankind, so it's okay. Right?
Time for another Heinleinism:
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."
---
* - A "quantum leap" is not what many people think; it has nothing to do with distance or quantity. It's the lay description for an instantaneous and non-logical state change -- which is precisely why leftists and social engineers don't understand it: they ARE a quantum leap.
posted by Jar(egg)head at 12:08
2 Comments:
The Common Sense
COLE
I want to tell you my secret now.
Malcolm blinks very slowly.
MALCOLM
Okay.
Cole takes an eternal pause. A silent tension engulfs them both.
COLE
...I see people.
Malcolm just gazes quietly.
COLE
I see stupid people... Some of them
scare me.
Beat.
MALCOLM
In your dreams?
Cole shakes his head, "No."
MALCOLM
When you're awake?
Cole nods, "Yes."
MALCOLM
Stupid people, like in sitcoms and
soap operas?
COLE
No, walking around, like regular
people... They can't see each
other. Some of them don't know
they're stupid.
MALCOLM
They don't know they're stupid?
Beat.
COLE
I see Idiots.
Malcolm becomes completely motionless. Works to hide his shock.
He and Cole stare at each other a long time.
COLE
They tell me stories... Things
that happened to them... Things
that happened to people they know.
Beat. Malcolm's words are extra-controlled. Revealing nothing.
MALCOLM
How often do you see them?
COLE
All the time. They're everywhere.
(beat)
You won't tell anyone my secret,
right?
There was a study done a few years ago where a group of students were given individual and intense study. The extra study "increased" the students IQ by as much as 20 points and an average of 10. After the study was over the kids IQ went back to its original or base after about 3 years.
To me this says a person can perform above their level, but I don't think it can be maintained. Like driving a car at 10,000 rpms. Yes you would get speed and performance from your Ford Festiva, but eventually you will blow the engine. So I think someone of average intelligence can learn, they are just not going to learn or retain at the level of someone of higher IQ.
Post a Comment
<< Home