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 -
No, Aristocracy is when smart people get to compete with each other and keep the profits of their own competition for themselves, instead of having all their time wasting competing with a horde of lvl. 1 3rd world zerglings and then having their miniscule EXP half confiscated and handed to more 3rd worlders and proles.
Smart people are keeping the profits for themselves. Ergo, you're not smart enough to be an aristocrat if you're here complaining about taxes and nepotism.
Most smart people lose half of their income to taxes and make half of what they should because of anti smart people systematic efforts to lower their opportunities. In other words, most smart people are upper middle class and make six figures. Or less -- go check the IQ income correlation. 145 IQ people are on average at the 90th percentile of income, with a lot of spread. That sounds wrong to me.
The most robust IQ-income correlations I've seen stop at 130, because they're based on the ASVAB.
This gets close to 140. The trend is pretty obvious anyway. My statement was based on the correlation being about 0.40. That means 3 SD IQ people average 1.2 SD income which is around 90th percentile on a gaussian. Income is skewed of course but not as fat tailed as wealth so I think this is a reasonable estimate. A right tail should decrease the percentile of each SD so if anything the situation is more bleak.
He's just using a different normalization of the same scores, that apparently gives slightly higher equivalent IQs.
So? You can see the linear trend, and the real underlying IQs in the sample were near 140, not max 130.
OK, so we take the median income at 145 to follow the linear trend at $50,850 (2011) above the expected value at 100, which is $32,730 (2011). This seems pretty good. Note that personal income doesn't follow a gaussian distribution at all.
It should probably be 10x the amount.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link