Well, in essence I just agree that Epicurus started off this particular argument with his question about IQ correlating with bigotry, as such Astner's replies should have referred to IQ (which then also implies that academic achievement is positively correlated with IQ (which it may be)), if they didn't he strayed from the topic. At any rate it's a bit of a silly argument, the rest of the interaction is surely more interesting than the tiny alleged "strawman" in a throwaway line.
Originally posted by Bentley
Ok, I see what you mean. Technically Epicurus brought up the article as an answer to a passing comment about humility, up to that point, IQ had no part in the discussion.
Yes, but he openly brought it up, starting the discussion on IQ. He didn't falsely assume it was about IQ, but rather asked a question.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I have no real knowledge on the subject. My gut feeling is probably no significant correlation.
I'm pretty much in the same boat. I think humility is sort of an antisocial value? It seems to be based in some sort of miscomunication. Several different attitudes may come out as humble and be caused by entirely different factors though.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I don't know whether humility is anti-social. I think it is probably an unrelated trait. Could you explain more thoroughly what you mean, cause I think I may not have understood fully.
I think that humilty has some sort of uncompetitive element into it, and that competition is one of the key features of social life. When you're a humble you don't stress your own competitive qualities, in a certain fashion you keep them to yourself. For whatever reason, this strikes me as antisocial.
I mean, females tend to prefer cocky males as partners.
Originally posted by Bentley
I think that humilty has some sort of uncompetitive element into it, and that competition is one of the key features of social life. When you're a humble you don't stress your own competitive qualities, in a certain fashion you keep them to yourself. For whatever reason, this strikes me as antisocial.
Hmm, I think there are studies that show that people like people who are very humble (in particular if they apologize a lot). Maybe there is some correlation between humility and introversion, but generally I think you are talking more about the latter.
Originally posted by Bentley
I mean, females tend to prefer cocky males as partners.
I don't know whether that is actually true at all. I know it is a stereotype that is commonly believed by some men, and extremely common in Pick Up Artist or "Nice Guy" circles.
People like humble people because they don't feel threatened I guess.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know whether that is actually true at all. I know it is a stereotype that is commonly believed by some men, and extremely common in Pick Up Artist or "Nice Guy" circles.
I wasn't just talking about human females.
Originally posted by Epicurus
That's not me strawmanning, that's you being incapable of following through a conversation, and then making an ass out of yourself by liberally throwing in accusations of strawmanning.If you actually bothered to read my original comments, it was me asking him what conclusions would he draw from a study which drew negative/positive correlations surrounding IQ of certain types of people. You butting in with your baseless allegations of strawmanning is just you demonstrating that you love to barge into discussions without even understanding the context surrounding said discussions.
No, it was a strawman. Pretty blatant one, really.
Well, you've learned something, today. Hope you do something better with it.
Originally posted by Epicurus
Apart from the 3 different times it was, you mean? First in the title, and the next 2 times in the article itself.
IQ tests were never a part of the study.
Originally posted by Epicurus
That's what I would call a colorful way ofdiscriminatingdistinguishing between 2 forms of bigotry.
Originally posted by Epicurus
Don't start deflecting now. My original post addressing you focused on IQ specifically, and while it is true that it is an insufficient indicator of intelligence from a purely scientific point of view, it is still a fairly reliable and more or less universally accepted method of "measuring" human intelligence in current times.
Originally posted by Epicurus
Not sure how.
Originally posted by Bentley
Ok, I see what you mean. Technically Epicurus brought up the article as an answer to a passing comment about humility, up to that point, IQ had no part in the discussion.
You are correct. And Astner fell for the strawman. Astner's desire for proving he's smarter made him fall victim to the strawman and now their discussion is on Epi's terms and Epi's argument (which was not the same as Astner's was, originally).
Originally posted by dadudemon
You are correct. And Astner fell for the strawman. Astner's desire for proving he's smarter made him fall victim to the strawman and now their discussion is on Epi's terms and Epi's argument (which was not the same as Astner's was, originally).
Only the part relating to the validity of the article Epi linked remains related in IQ in any way or form. Each of Astner's answers have included allusions to the original topic.
To say they are arguing solely on Epi's term is not strictly true.
Edit: I agree that he fell for the strawman though.
Originally posted by Astner
I wasn't referring to the pop science article you linked, I referred to the actual study conducted by Gourdon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri, which I linked, the title of which is: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact.IQ tests were never a part of the study.
You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that homophobes aren't prejudice by necessity like racists are.
No it's not. See the article I linked.
Because humility, by definition, relates to perspective. You're not humble for putting up a façade.
Decades of research in social and political psychology have demonstrated that political conservatives appear more intolerant toward a variety of groups than do political liberals. Recent work from our three independent labs has challenged this conventional wisdom by suggesting that some of the psychological underpinnings of intolerance are not exclusive to people on either end of the political spectrum. These studies have demonstrated that liberals and conservatives express similar levels of intolerance toward ideologically dissimilar and threatening groups. We suggest directions for future research and discuss the psychological and political implications of our conclusions.
Either you're getting confused or I am not communicating my point properly, or its both. Which one, you decide.
I don't really understand why you had to edit that part of my post, since my usage of the word "discriminate" was neither grammatically nor contextually wrong. Racists prejudiced by necessity? What sort of bullsh1t logic is that?
I did. I also admitted that it was an insufficient indicator of intelligence. Which is essentially what that study boils down to once we peel past loaded terms like "IQ is a myth", "there is no such thing as IQ" etc. That still doesn't change the fact that as of this moment, it is more or less a universally accepted method of "measuring" intelligence in virtually all societies. Maybe a few decades down the line, SQ or EQ will replace it, but for now, IQ's the done deal.
How exactly do you know that Ramanujam and Noether put up a facade? Or that Hilbert and Schwartzschild didn't? Did you read diary entries or first-hand accounts from them and/or their friends/families that were never disclosed to public?
Originally posted by Bentley
To be fair you have a history of deforming people's arguments in order to make them fit into the discussion you think you're having awesr
Anyways, I didn't strawman, and you would know this if you followed through Astner and my discussion.