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 -
I just took another batch of IQ tests for some poor suffering undergrads and felt that they were hilariously swingy.
I've always scored around 130; but one or two questions can drop your right out of/into that bracket , and the pattern recognition questions are easy to get wrong through test format. Eg, in this test there was a sequence of numbers displayed such that the question number looked like it was part of the sequence. I only noticed because it made the sequence all fucky.
This ontop of the other (crapyer) test where you basically play word association half the time, the whole enterprise of IQ testing fills me with doubt. I have no doubt I am "intelligent" enough to be somewhere near where I test on the bell curve, but 97th percentile feels way too high to me. I feel like a better test would be to present my with a piece of broken machinery I've never seen before and timing me while I try to fix it, only that's kinda hard to feed into numpy for pretty graphs.
Are the IQ tests used for actual funded trials different than what is used by starving students, are all of them shakey as hell buzzfeed affairs, or am I just biased against them for some reason?
Were they IQ tests, or were they just researching cognition and making sloppy estimates? An actual IQ test is standardized and normed, and administered by professionals (not, generally, undergrads).
In my experience, it is often incredibly difficult for smart people to truly grasp how stupid most people are. This is an extremely pesky fact because it's almost impossible to discuss without sounding hopelessly pretentious, but the fact remains--a good portion of American college students, who statistically represent the "best and brightest" ~40% of their generation, cannot follow or construct a formal argument without extensive coaching.
And I mean this in the most basic, technical sense of identifying premises and relating them to conclusions. For example, I once made a presentation about LSAT success to a room of undergraduates aiming for law school. I grabbed some sample questions from the LSAC website, that I figured would be easy enough to serve as a clear example of "what to expect" without scaring the audience too badly. In an audience of about 20 upperclassmen, there was one student (a physics major) who was able to answer the questions. Everyone else was totally mystified. For reference, here is a recent LSAC sample question:
Now, the LSAT is not an IQ test, but the point is that I work with university students all the time, and I am actively aware of things like how many struggle to pass the logic classes, algebra classes, etc. But even then I constantly find myself overestimating their ability to just engage in basic reasoning tasks. And no, I'm not an ivy league professor, I'm not teaching our nation's elite, but estimating from SAT ranges most of my students are generally within the 110-130 IQ range. With a bit of coaching and regular study, they can be trained to do things like pass an algebra class, though most will forget what they've learned within a decade or two, especially if they don't put it to use in their professions.
In I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup, Scott Alexander writes a bit about the strength of "filter bubbles" that separate the "red tribe" from the "blue tribe." In my experience, there are also filter bubbles that separate people by IQ. I have red-tribe friends running a wide range of apparent intelligence levels. I also have many blue-tribe friends, but all of them are either lawyers or college professors or similar. Low-IQ blue tribers might as well not exist, as far as my social experiences go. I'm sure they do exist--I am reminded of their existence any time I accidentally read reddit without logging in!
If you're testing in the 97th percentile I can't imagine why you'd feel biased against IQ tests, which seem to be telling you something most people want to hear: that you're really special! This may be muted because you don't feel special (possibly as a result of IQ filter bubbles), or because the way in which you are special doesn't amount to much if it isn't paired with some mixture of conscientiousness and luck. But finally it is probably important to remember that, as a statistical measure, IQ is of much greater use when discussing populations than when discussing individuals. Yes, knowing an individual's professionally-established IQ probably gives you some information about them, but IQ ranges in professions are nevertheless quite broad.
I must say, I was totally mystified by the sample LSAT question as well. After being told that the answer is B it seems obvious in hindsight, but when you're tired or stressed it's hard to connect the dots without switching into System 2.
More options
Context Copy link
I am guessing they would be online IQ tests. A professional IQ test must be proctored. You cannot just do a batch of them.
People keep circulating this picture around as evidence of low IQ thresholds or overlaps. It is junk. It's based on old 30-40-year-old data and does not apply to America's much more competitive economic and labor landscape, in which there are higher cognitive thresholds and more pre-employment filtering, especially for tech jobs. Being a programmer in 1980 is not at all like today.
"It is junk" seems like an overstatement of your complaint, though. If you have something based on more recent data, I'd love to see it (and share it!). I share your intuition that more recent data would very likely show less overlap and higher thresholds (at least for STEM professions, and maybe others as well). But I don't know that for certain, and I'm skeptical that the difference would be so great as to invalidate my point.
This is the problem with social science studies in general, as they are based on old data and used to make normative statements about society as it is today. Gathering sufficient data, analyzing it, peer review, etc. takes time. Nowadays companies have much more ways of filtering out and the pre-employment stage, like background checks, automated resume filtering, drug tests, personality tests, phone interviews, etc. these did not exist 30+ years ago, or at least not as often.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why wouldn't he be?
I'm not sure there even exists any group biased in favor of IQ, except for communities self-selected on this exact condition – psychometricians, biodeterminism evangelists, and Mensa losers who do not have any other achievement in life; ironically, this makes IQ an invalid metric in their case, and largely redundant in every other. Most intelligent people have external validations of their superiority – diplomas, professional outcomes, power. An IQ number adds nothing legible to that social proof.
Indeed, they have very good reasons to be biased against IQ. Fittingly, one of the smartest people in my network, who easily maxed out any test, was also the most dismissive of the idea. A pure math student. The notion that your intelligence is measurable at all is insulting on its face to people who have built careers in highly competitive cognitive fields. Do those mere psychologists assert to comprehend dimensions of my mind? Moreover, using some two-bit puzzles? And putting a single number on it?! One who has spent months to decades mastering challenging problems, crossing inferential distances, is naturally incredulous. And is not hard to just memorize patterns in a typical IQ test – why assume others have not, if that is something ostensibly prestigious?
Such people also inhabit filter bubbles, where understanding the idiocy of the average does not bring any benefit – you can go your whole life humblebragging that any poor schmuck could be in your place, you just were lucky and worked hard. It even sounds encouraging, egalitarian. IQ realism is, of course, anything but.
And finally, if one takes implications of IQ reality seriously, then there is a question: are those credentialized people truly the best of the bunch? No matter how much improvement training brings, it stands to reason that a higher-IQ type would be able to wrangle ideas that lesser people are cognitively closed to; see farther; dodge easy mistakes. So, perhaps, there is some fault in the criteria of success in their institutions? So perhaps their status, too, is not quite merited?
People who don't score highly are biased against IQ for obvious reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
TBQH, red tribers don’t segregated themselves by IQ to nearly the same extent as blue tribers.
This sounds intuitively true to me, but I've never explicitly noticed this before. Do you know of a study/source measuring this, or is just obvious anecdotal trends? And why do think it is this way? Is it just that the Blue Tribe places intelligence on a pedestal and so care about it more when selecting friends and relationships, while Red Tribers are more down to earth? Is it because of Blue Tribers congregating in universities and cities and that somehow drives this segregation, while Red Tribers are more likely to stay in their hometown and mingle with everyone else who lives there?
It’s anecdotal trends, but I think it’s driven by education level segregation in the blue tribe more than anything about IQ per se.
In large part red tribe hobbies are things that appeal to people from across the IQ/class/education spectrum(hunting, football, political conspiracy theories, motorcycles, barbecue, guns- these all seem to have fairly equal appeal to smart and dumb, rich and poor, illiterate and learned alike, whereas blue tribe hobbies usually don’t.) Additionally the economic niches red tribers fill tend to put them in touch with both white and blue collar workers while blue tribers are pretty siloed into white collar or service work. Finally red tribers are just more likely to not go to college even when they’re smart, so bubbles based on education are both less likely to form(conservative churches and bars are both probably less segregated by education status than liberal examples of either) and less segregating by IQ when they do form.
More options
Context Copy link
Online, it seems reversed, with red/grey people putting more value on IQ. Cernovich, for example , tweets a lot about IQ. Or Charles Murray.
Hold up, are you suggesting that Cernovich and Murray are "red tribe" in your book?
For the umpteenth time the blue/red distinction is cultural not political, and yes there is a difference.
If like a spectrum, closer to red than not. But I see what you mean.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When I was a kid, my school peers were all fellow AP-track kids with similar 1400-1600 SAT scores. Nowadays the majority of those kids all went to similar selective colleges, my peers from my selective colleges were mostly other kids who were AP-track kids at their own high schools. At work, my peers were at their own selective colleges with other AP-track kids from other high schools. And so on and so forth. I met my wife in college, her college friends and work peers all track similarly. A lot of our Blue Tribe hobbies "appropriate to our class" like Yoga and Rock Climbing and Art Galleries just expose us to other people who attended other selective colleges etc etc ditto ditto.
On the other hand, my friends from the Boy Scouts, from Church, and from local team sports ranged. Some were average (1200 SAT) kids from similar suburban houses. Some of my lifelong best friends from scouts lived in trailer parks. Some of my friends from church are good people, but basically not that bright, cardboard factory workers. Even today, guys at my gun club range (lol) in profession, from engineers to cops to trash collectors.
That's the basic argument: Blue Tribe life is all about professional attainment and as such focuses itself in work-home-status hobbies that stratify class (and thus largely IQ) lines. Red Tribe life centers itself around cultural institutions that cut across classes.
This is the basic argument of [Coming Apart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_Apart_(book); I would note that both my argument and his only apply to White Americans and not evenly to other races for complicated reasons.
Okay, I have to link to this. Yes, he's shouty, but it's part of the performance image he's built up.
"This is food for sheep and people who do yoga" 😁
Thanks, I hate it.
More seriously though, what is this meant to convey? That asparagus is high class? This might be wildly pedantic but IME that's very much not the case - I live in a rural area with a lot of ditches not near cropland or irrigation systems. As a result there's a rather vibrant scene every summer for about two weeks where wild asparagus is freely available to anyone who feels like pulling over to the side of the road and walking down into the tall grass to snap off a pound or two (or twenty) of the stuff. It has a very similar vibe to people who go mushroom hunting after a good rain, something that could be considered "outdoorsy" or "being in tune with nature". In practice I've found that it's more people who are already farming/gardening/hunting/fishing, drive their F-150 three blocks to the town gas station for their Marb lights, started working when they were sixteen and held down a job somewhere doing something ever since.
No, I think it was just funny. Who on earth thinks of putting asparagus into a sweet cake? Some kind of savoury quiche or tart, sure - but a cake? It was an 80s recipe, but I have to agree with Hollis that it does have the vibe of "whole organic vegan all-natural gathered under the light of the full moon" types.
I've gone mushroom picking in the fields with my dad as a youngster years back, but we never thought of "okay, now coat them in chocolate and stick them on top of an apple tart" 😁
Hey, fair enough. To me that recipe just looks like a tweaked carrot cake with ferns instead of root vegetables, sounds kind of gross but I might give it a shot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think, in modern times, the latter part about conscientiousness and luck, particularly the conscientiousness, has a lot to do with it. If it is true that IQ is largely innate and predictive of one's success in intellectual fields (as well as non-intellectual ones, for that matter), then if you have high IQ, then your success in intellectual fields can largely be attributed to luck of birth, akin to living a wealthy luxurious life because your parents happened to be billionaires. This, I think, is highly damaging to the ego of many people who like to imagine themselves as having worked for their success, and notably worked harder than all those other people who they had to outcompete in order to succeed. I personally believe that this is one of the main drivers of the widespread rejection of IQ and heredity thereof among the educated academic group.
Of course, there's also the issue that conscientiousness itself may also be just as "innate" as IQ (for however "innate" any such characteristic can be said to be), which is a whole other can of worms.
More options
Context Copy link
Well I must be smarter than I thought, because B seems to me to be the only proper answer. Then again, I'm a lot older than the people in that class, so I've learned by experience to read the question, don't jump to conclusions, and be sure you know what you are answering (rather than what you think you are answering).
More options
Context Copy link
A common argument against IQ tests and standardized tests is the coachability aspect. It's easy to control for this by allowing for multiple re-takes, and even then, you will still find that scores exhibit a normal distribution and are predictive of IQ. It's just that the mean is slightly higher. The SAT can be taken many times, with the highest score counting, and still exhibits normal distribution.
More options
Context Copy link
Since you're talking about university students I have to ask: does this mean they've learned how to decompose an Abelian group, or that they've learned the quadratic formula?
I still remember long ago being asked for geometry help by a neighbor, a smart man who owned his own white-collar business, because his business math only required (grade school) algebra and arithmetic, and by the time he was remodeling his sailboat he'd forgotten how to use the Pythagorean Theorem on a real problem. I'd feel more smug, except later there was an entire math class I forgot 90% of, during several years interlude between "I'll take this for fun" and "wait, this could actually be used for something?".
This depends to a significant extent on the school--and I don't mean "more prestigious schools will require more." Sometimes it is quite the opposite! There are a variety of contributing factors, here.
For example, faculty at a community college are sometimes less demanding than those at a major university, given the demographics of their student body (which also vary dramatically between community colleges, tending to track the demographics of their respective communities). But community college faculty also typically emphasize teaching over research, and small class sizes over large lecture halls, and actual professors over grad students. As a consequence, a community college in a middle-class suburb is often a much better place to learn algebra than a major research university. This is something middle-class students often consider when weighing the benefits of doing two years of study at a more-affordable community college before transferring to a state university to finish a bachelor's degree.
Or for a different example, the "introductory" math and science classes at a STEM-focused university will often be substantially more rigorous than "equivalent" courses at large state universities. Accreditation processes are supposed to smooth this out somewhat, but in practice the "Algebra 101" class offered by Big State U has to be passable by large numbers of non-STEM students. This can sometimes lead to disputes over general education requirements as STEM programs in large universities like to really load up specialized credit hours; they don't want their students wasting credit hours (as they see it) passing an "Algebra 101" class with content students "should" have already learned in high school (e.g., the quadratic formula). Indeed, it's not unheard of for STEM majors to be expected to pass derivative and integral calculus courses in their freshman year, or else to just plan on spending at least five years completing their studies, including a semester or two of, functionally, remedial mathematics.
Or for yet another example, faced with the foregoing, some universities just outright offer "non-STEM-major" classes. I'm personally aware of this happening in the sciences rather than math--like, "BIO 101 for non-major general education credit, or BIO 110 for STEM majors"--but I have heard of similar things happening with math.
Yeah, I completed a semester of calculus in my university studies, but I didn't understand the use of calculus until many years later, by which point I had long since forgotten how to conduct operations any more complicated than getting the first derivative of x^2. The last time my mathematical abilities really counted for anything more complicated than household finances was probably when I took the GRE.
My state school alma mater still has calculus I and II as freshman-level (100-series) classes, though they now have a pair of lower classes ("Precalculus" and "College Algebra and Trigonometry" which appear to cover the same ground) which are freshman-level also. Regular algebra is remedial (000-series).
The school has separate calculus curricula not only for non-STEM majors but for life science majors. Not sure if this reflects on the calculus ability of life science majors or is just meant to make sure the women in STEM are kept safe from the bulk of the geeks.
The non-STEM calculus is usually horribly watered down, and in a weaker school may never deal with anything more complicated than polynomials. Life science calc, where it exists, cuts out trig in favor of early work with exponentials and logs, and is much more computational, but at least it doesn’t purge limits from the curriculum.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Geology 101: Rocks For Jocks" was the joke at my school.
The bifurcation I saw in math was "math for future engineers" vs "math for future mathematicians", where the latter versions of classes would cover more material at a more theoretical level, but the former were nothing to be ashamed of. "Math for non-STEM students" was just "math for future engineers but you're allowed to stop taking it sooner". Even the lower-level calculus that many STEM kids had tested past would still be taught quite rigorously. ... which was a very good idea; some kids hadn't had as many opportunities in high school, some changed majors (although changing out of STEM was more common than into STEM...), etc.
There was one "CS for future engineers" sort of class, taught by the engineering department, that should have been much tougher ... but in between "half the kids have never written Hello World" and "they all need to spend time on Fortran for when they're thrown into legacy codes", maybe they did the best they could in one semester.
More options
Context Copy link
I've seen a trend at some big Universities that seems designed to choke off the community college option and solve the non-STEM-major math course problem. STEM majors that are designed as pure, four year programs with tight prerequisite chains of degree requirements starting in the first year such that missing or failing one course sets back progress a year (especially if classes in the sequence are only offered one semester out of the year), that cannot be fulfilled by community college courses so at best the only benefit there are general education requirements but the blow may be softened somewhat with university offered humanities-for-STEM-majors courses that are credit and workload light to accommodate STEM workloads but fulfill the larger University's requirements. It can lead to a rather segregated student population, more so than normal (especially if you have dorms similarly segregated, there is usually at least one quieter STEM focused dorm that may or may not be combined with the substance free themed offering).
More options
Context Copy link
I did this in the late 90s. Took a physics and a geology class both explicitly for non-stem majors. My main take away was that the professors loved teaching those classes and were open about how much more they liked us as students than their stem students. They also happened to be good professors generally. Rest in peace Dr. Aaronson.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link