I have had debates on here about various issues. One of the debates was about why Africa is always in disarray.
So I talked to a guy from Nigeria and asked him why?
He looked at me and said.
It's simple of why Africa is in bad shape. He said....
Too many difference of opinions of how things should be. He said for example.
In Nigeria. There are over 500 different tribes. With various languages and cultures.
I told him my doctor was from Nigeria to. He said... What is his name.
I told him.
He goes.
Ah... an EBO man with a smile.
I said what's the smile about.
He said.. No offense to your doctor. But we DON'T TRUST EBO guys.
I said why..
He said they are shady and are money hustlers.
I said wow.
He said there are tons of African tribes that HATE EACH other.
Basically he said it's no different than DIE HARD LIBERALS fighting against DIE HARD CONVERSATIVES.
He said.. just imagine if there were 500+ political parties all with various thought processes. He said how much in fighting would there be.
He said. it has nothing to do with intelligence or anything like that.
He said it's all about ego. Such as "Our tribe" is better then your "tribe".
I thought this was interesting.
National IQ Scores:
https://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html
IQ is a bell curve, but explains a lot. Combination of IQ and hormones explains more than most would believe.
None of this means that any individual cannot be an exception to the rule, but the rules are the rules, generally, for mostly biological reasons.
I want to see the link between IQ and willingness to believe IQ makes the world go round. Mid-IQs have the hardest time accepting it. Most libtards and redditors are mid-IQ or slightly above average but believe they are high IQ. Racists exist at both ends of the bell curve, but not in the middle for some reason. I don’t know how you can exist on this planet and observe the world around you and not notice it.
There's a term for that, where people of lower IQ tend to underestimate other people's intelligence, and people with higher IQ tend to overestimate other people's intelligence.
Probably something to it.
Highly intelligent people also recognize that “unknown unknowns” exist.
Moderately intelligent people trust “the science” and think that we are only a few years away from understanding everything about our world. They are focused on “known unknowns”, for example fusion energy. Fusion energy production is a thing that we can’t get to work right now, but we think that we will figure it out soon. We know that we don’t fully understand it, however, we do “know” that fusion exists.
However, highly intelligent people understand that there are things that we are not even aware that we don’t know, “unknown unknowns”. Educated intelligent people understand the great number of scientific anomalies. Have you heard of the “corona heating anomaly”? Most people haven’t. For some reason, some locations in the Sun’s corona can be much much hotter than the surface of the sun. Given that solar fusion requires high pressure and that radiant heat usually becomes weaker we have no idea exactly why or how this energy is being produced. So for most people this is an “unknown unknown”.
Donald Rumsfeld was a bastard but he did give us that little nugget.
I’ve realized over the years that language is a strong indicator of the knowledge mastered by a culture and its values.
Many African tribal languages not only lack the vocabulary to describe mathematics, science, technology, law etc. but they lack words to describe abstract social concepts like duty, obligation or promises. Without the words to express numbers over 100 or negative numbers, how are you going to learn anything about math? When your language doesn’t have common words to describe duty, obligation or promises, it’s a sign that the people speaking that language don’t understand or value those concepts.
Good post.
Most people have lost the ability to look back into deep history and connect the fact that those early hominids are US.
There was no grand conspiracy to make our society patriarchal. Men went out hunted, risked their lives, provided for the females. Females brought the next generation into the world, cared for people, gathered, and held the family/community unit together.
We might think we have come far, but we are for the most part living the roles that we started with with the exception of alot of BS politics confusing the matter.
Imagine if men respected women for their contributions and women respected men for their contributions and everyone just lived the role they were best suited to fill.
Spot on.
The roles of men and women evolved due to differences in biology.
Natrually, since only women can give birth and feed with breast milk, it would make sense for them to assume that role. While they are feeding one young, they likely had many others running around, whether their own or the children of the other women in the tribe. They all worked together to look after and raise the children.
Meanwhile, there is a much different skill set needed to successfully go out into the wilderness, find wild animals, outsmart them, throw rocks, spears, and manufactured weapons to kill the animals, sometimes fighting a physical fight with the animals, avoid being bitten or clawed, and killing the animal. Then carrying or dragging the animal back to the tribe to feed everybody.
Two completely different skill sets. The men had an immediate feedback as to their skills. Either (a) their skills gave them the ability to make the kill and feed themselves and the tribe, or (b) their lack of skills made them go hungry and their tribe either went off with other men or died. They knew in short order how their ideas were working out.
OTOH, women made choices in child rearing that might not be completely known for many years. Was it a good idea to feed the kids this, or to tell them not to do that, or to scold them for such and such? We won't know for many years, when they grow up into adults and we see how they turned out.
Men had to be quiet in the bush, at times, to listen and avoid being detected. Women could jabber all day long. KEK
Today, when women want to buy something, they like to (prior to Internet and Covid) go to the mall and just "browse" whether they buy something or not -- similar to "gathering" nearby fruits off the trees.
Men ususally don't like shopping all that much, and just want to "get in, and get out" kind of like hunting (or sex and then sleep). ;-)
Our biology DICTATED our roles in life.
It was NOTHING MORE -- and NOTHING LESS -- than that.
IQ is overrated.
In reality.
When building a TEAM to do something big.
You need a variety of skillsets win.
Most of the team will need to be able to do EASY TASK that can be repeated by anyone.
This is why most successful organizations can SCALE out their model. WHY?? Because they can train ANYONE off the street to do a task.
McDonald's made a fortune. Because they were able to create a system of scale. That you can take anyone to flip burgers.
Most high IQ genius folks do not work in SALES and MARKETING to push product,
WHY?
Because the common person would not understand complicated tech talk. The common person needs things explained in SIMPLE terms.
So I am not buying that IQ means too much.
You only need a few geniues to do good.
Creativity in the most important.
Why do you think most CEO's do not know anything about technology like writing code.
But still they are leading the tech team to execute a task.
Sure, but Apple Computer is larger than McDonald's and built much more quickly. Different skill set.
Their skill set is in obtaining and directing resources, strategy, capital raising, and motivation. They don't need to know how to write code or flip burgers. Different job, different skill set.
Not really. The CEO is leading upper management, only part of which is leading the tech team. The rest of upper management is leading sales, marketing, finance, legal, and a host of other departments within the entire organization.
IQ is not "be all, end all." I will agree with you on that. But it is also not irrelevant. It is highly relevant at the macro level.
IQ is a stupid FINITE number that doesn't make logical sense to use.
Here is why.
IF I took the IQ test and it said I am an idiot.
IF I got the answers to the test and someone explained to me why I got the problems wrong.
I can CORRECT my wrong answers and learn the material.
That's the problem with testing.
People brain's are very similar to AI technology.
AI is designed to fail over and over again. And make corrections based off of mistakes.
For Example: The Auto Driving Vechiles that Google made. Did make some mistakes and causes crashes.
This is how they improved the AI. By making those mistakes and correcting them.
I am a software engineer.
First versions of an app is always BAD and has bugs.
Over time the app gets better as we correct the mistakes.
You cannot use a test to figure out people. Because people are not STATIC entities. We are DYNAMIC entities that change and grow via experiences.
A finite IQ number is nothing more than a HIGHER ED Academic's way of saying they can figure people out.
I am 42 years old.
I was a lazy C student in high school.
My intelligence has increased 100 fold since college.
WHY???
Because I care now. I didn't care before.
What I would like to see with the IQ test.
I would like to make it like real life. Give someone the test. Tutor them on what they miss. See can they improve.
If the I.Q. test said that you were an idiot (I.Q. <= 70), you would not be able to UNDERSTAND why your answers were incorrect.
When I was growing up, the severely mentally deficient were placed in "special education" classrooms in primary school. They were segregated for good reason. Even though they were mostly placid, they were about as conscious as a cat or a dog. It is a hideous impairment, and we should not blithely imagine it to be correctable.
Someone from the standpoint of I.Q. = 140 sees it similarly: The vast majority near I.Q. = 100 will never be able to "learn" how to be more intelligent. It's like height in a basketball game. Most of us think we are smarter than we are, just as the posting said. Maybe because as we happen to be smarter, we have a hard time understanding how it is possible to be not so smart. And so we use words to disparage people for being crippled---which is what it amounts to.
I learned this a long time ago: Whatever I.Q. I can claim above 100, there is someone out there that has a corresponding deficit. I have my brilliance at the cost of their dullness, because the distribution function is symmetrical. That's the way it works. And if it is a blessing, it is because the brilliant are able to produce more of more-lasting good, to benefit all. But it is of no use if the brilliant think of their brilliance as an advantage over others, to more successfully manipulate them. This is evil.
You don't win any arguments over I.Q. It doesn't change anything, except possibly your own heart. We have the ability to aid our fellow men with patience and explanation and encouragement. (It even works with animals.) Given why this site is even in existence, we have little cause to look down our nose at any other people who have strife in their lives.
Wow, great story! You are 100% right.
IQ tests are overrated
Lady pede here, I dropped out of school at 16. Was homeless for several years. Lived under a pier for a while.
Didn't go to college (until my 40s).
At 19 I got my stuff together and learned a skill.
Now I have a successful business life I would never have dreamed possible and I DID IT ALL MYSELF.
It is about seeing what you want to do in life and NEVER letting anything get in your way.
IMO, an IQ test is nothing more than an evaluation of a person's abstract thinking aptitude. I think that's why they do it at a fairly young age.
Some people think in more concrete terms but have little abstract thinking aptitude. Those people can do well in life, but lacking an ability for abstract thinking is a hinderance, and for a society as a whole is a very bad thing.
Leftists tend to be these types of people, from what I see.