That's a pretty big overlap. I wonder how the whites on the left side of the spectrum would behave. They'd probably exclusively talk about race because they would have no significant or noteworthy accomplishments to claim of their own. Wouldn't higher whites want to get away from both? If groups of people, and not just individuals, fair better when the whole group is more intellegent, what is to stop higher whites from identifying themselves as an exclusive group and doing even better? How would they identify themselves to each other? They'd probably have to signal things like individual tallent, and broad and nuance interest in many topics, and signs of higher degrees of social intellegence and development.
Seeing that lower whites are on a similar intellengence level as unwanted migrants are does that mean they behave similarly when confronted by cues that they aren't really welcome and just take it as unwarrented hate and personal attack rather than as a useful social strategy by the other party? Or do they behave actually white, recognize when they aren't wanted, and move on because that would be the well mannered thing to do when confronted with such cues.
Excellent points. My 2 cents on the image in general:
The important question for any society is not about arriving at equality, but to treat people equally, per the law, in an 'inclusive society' (which is an old economic model, contrasted with an 'extraction economy') so that the wealthiest members do not exploit and extract all of the production.
IQ is not the only means of understanding one's abilities.
The image is commonly used for race baiting in social media, and is from here: Gottfredson, L. S. (2005a). "Implications of cognitive differences for schooling within diverse societies." In C. L. Frisby & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of multicultural school psychology (pp. 517–554). New York: Wiley.
Gottfredson is a psychologist, someone who can talk about dreams, myths, penis envy, sex with one's mother, etc, but not about research data.
She's unqualified to discuss intelligence and ability.
She promotes eugenics, scientific racism, and white nationalism with the help of misleading information.
Arguments for eugenics and scientific racism were debunked in the early 20th century. (for those who don't know, ask google: how was eugenics debunked?)
It gets very complex very quickly. You've listed some things - talent, interests, intelligence - but omitted other things - cooperative, motivated, social, etc. A selfish, lazy, anti-social genius isn't much good for anyone, themself included. We haven't even talked about good specimens and health. And who gets to determine the measures? Book smarts, street smarts, trivia smarts, adaptability, creativity, etc. So many ways to measure - and most of us are just average on most things.
Of course. For an advanced people the list of relevant merits goes on and on. As it should. Being developed is not uni-dimensional. But one thing is for sure. People who try to have the same argument with people every single day on the internet for years and years and years aren't it.
I think one of the top metrics, though still a bit subjective, is if you bring real value to a community. That's what it means to be a developed person.
They can have equity in shitty bureaucracies and monopolies that produce nothing of value.
That said, the socialist motto is each according to their abilities, each according to their needs. Technically, there's nothing in that sentiment that requires western corporate diversity.
Log in
That's a pretty big overlap. I wonder how the whites on the left side of the spectrum would behave. They'd probably exclusively talk about race because they would have no significant or noteworthy accomplishments to claim of their own. Wouldn't higher whites want to get away from both? If groups of people, and not just individuals, fair better when the whole group is more intellegent, what is to stop higher whites from identifying themselves as an exclusive group and doing even better? How would they identify themselves to each other? They'd probably have to signal things like individual tallent, and broad and nuance interest in many topics, and signs of higher degrees of social intellegence and development.
Seeing that lower whites are on a similar intellengence level as unwanted migrants are does that mean they behave similarly when confronted by cues that they aren't really welcome and just take it as unwarrented hate and personal attack rather than as a useful social strategy by the other party? Or do they behave actually white, recognize when they aren't wanted, and move on because that would be the well mannered thing to do when confronted with such cues.
Excellent points. My 2 cents on the image in general:
The important question for any society is not about arriving at equality, but to treat people equally, per the law, in an 'inclusive society' (which is an old economic model, contrasted with an 'extraction economy') so that the wealthiest members do not exploit and extract all of the production.
IQ is not the only means of understanding one's abilities.
The image is commonly used for race baiting in social media, and is from here: Gottfredson, L. S. (2005a). "Implications of cognitive differences for schooling within diverse societies." In C. L. Frisby & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of multicultural school psychology (pp. 517–554). New York: Wiley.
Gottfredson is a psychologist, someone who can talk about dreams, myths, penis envy, sex with one's mother, etc, but not about research data.
She's unqualified to discuss intelligence and ability.
She promotes eugenics, scientific racism, and white nationalism with the help of misleading information.
Arguments for eugenics and scientific racism were debunked in the early 20th century. (for those who don't know, ask google: how was eugenics debunked?)
A good explanation of her is here: https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/linda-gottfredson
It gets very complex very quickly. You've listed some things - talent, interests, intelligence - but omitted other things - cooperative, motivated, social, etc. A selfish, lazy, anti-social genius isn't much good for anyone, themself included. We haven't even talked about good specimens and health. And who gets to determine the measures? Book smarts, street smarts, trivia smarts, adaptability, creativity, etc. So many ways to measure - and most of us are just average on most things.
Of course. For an advanced people the list of relevant merits goes on and on. As it should. Being developed is not uni-dimensional. But one thing is for sure. People who try to have the same argument with people every single day on the internet for years and years and years aren't it.
I think one of the top metrics, though still a bit subjective, is if you bring real value to a community. That's what it means to be a developed person.
Are those folks anything like people who fantasize on the internet every day about the ideal user… like in the statement you just made?
They can have equity in shitty bureaucracies and monopolies that produce nothing of value.
That said, the socialist motto is each according to their abilities, each according to their needs. Technically, there's nothing in that sentiment that requires western corporate diversity.