This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Again, i don't think our understanding of consciousness and cognition is nearly as good as we like to pretend it is and and this sort of fetishization of Goodheart's Law sticks out to me as an obvious pitfall.
Is an extra 10 - 20 points over the median result in a significant advantage over said median? Sure. But i would also caution against reading too much into it. My alma mater may not be as prestigious as Oxford or Cambridge but it is reasonably prestigious (im confident that you'll have heard of it) and having pursued a degree and subsequently made my career in mathematics I've had a lot of dealings with both precocious kids and MENSA-types and can tell you that IQ does not neccesarily translate into intelligent behavior or cognitive function. The Sheldon Cooper archetype exists and they tend to be far less fun or functional in IRL than they are portrayed as on TV. I have nothing to base this on aside from my own observation but my impression is that there is an inflection point where (to the degree that IQ is real) the upsides of "number go up" become overshadowed by the downsides of nuerousises, mental illness, addiction, Et Al. I think that the thing set a lot of the "great geniuses" a part is not thier raw intelligence as much as it is thier ability to be botb highly intelligent and highly functional at the same time.
more like 50+ points above the mean , and IQ is necessary but not sufficient
If its not sufficient, how do you prove that it's neccesary?
I'm not the commenter you were replying to, but trivially, if all people with trait C (prodigies, 10x engineers, etc) exhibit both trait A and trait B, while people with only A or B do not exhibit trait C, you could say that trait B is necessary but not sufficient.
In this example, you could say that trait C (prodigy) requires traits A (IQ, intelligence, whatever) and trait B (conscientiousness, focus) or whatever trait D (open-mindedness to explore new research avenues, low neuroticism to avoid some of the pitfalls of high IQ, etc).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link