/lit/ - Literature

>>12645101
Sounds good if you can handle it. You should be fine.
t. Math major, Philosophy minor

*blocks your path*

>>12248550
I disagree entirely.
Ben Shapiro is only able to win the admiration of people who view the debate team as being higher than the stage of real life.
He comes off as rude, condescending and arrogant to the average person. In fact, your average guy probably meets Shapiro with pure and undiluted hatred. Communication is mostly non-verbal, and his sucks. His body language is terrible, his facial expressions are devoid of almost anything but disdain, his voice is nasally and weak. The end result of all this is an inability to persuade.
The super-intelligent look at him as neurotic, a piece of work. He calls out others on gaps in logic but fails to hold his own statements to the same standard. He plays the role of being objective and logical but he is like a child throwing temper tantrums sometimes, "POOR PEOPLE ARE POOR BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID, HOW DARE THEY COMPLAIN". He grossly overgeneralizes statistics and extrapolates them as the iron laws.
The only people I see expressing any sort of fondness or admiration for Shapiro are complete brainlets, looking for someone smarter than them. Congratulations, you proved yourself a brainlet.

>>12233331
Reminds me of pic related.

“[There is] no direct relationship between IQ and economic opportunity. In the supposed interests of fairness and “social justice”, the natural relationship has been all but obliterated.

Consider the first necessity of employment, filling out a job application. A generic job application does not ask for information on IQ. If such information is volunteered, this is likely to be interpreted as boastful exaggeration, narcissism, excessive entitlement, exceptionalism [...] and/or a lack of team spirit. None of these interpretations is likely to get you hired.

Instead, the application contains questions about job experience and educational background, neither of which necessarily has anything to do with IQ. Universities are in business for profit; they are run like companies, seek as many paying clients as they can get, and therefore routinely accept people with lukewarm IQ’s, especially if they fill a slot in some quota system (in which case they will often be allowed to stay despite substandard performance). Regarding the quotas themselves, these may in fact turn the tables, advantaging members of groups with lower mean IQ’s than other groups [...] sometimes, people with lower IQ’s are expressly advantaged in more ways than one.

These days, most decent jobs require a college education. Academia has worked relentlessly to bring this about, as it gains money and power by monopolizing the employment market across the spectrum. Because there is a glut of college-educated applicants for high-paying jobs, there is usually no need for an employer to deviate from general policy and hire an applicant with no degree. What about the civil service? While the civil service was once mostly open to people without college educations, this is no longer the case, and quotas make a very big difference in who gets hired. Back when I was in the New York job market, “minorities” (actually, worldwide majorities) were being spotted 30 (thirty) points on the civil service exam; for example, a Black person with a score as low as 70 was hired ahead of a White person with a score of 100. Obviously, any prior positive correlation between IQ and civil service employment has been reversed.

Add to this the fact that many people, including employers, resent or feel threatened by intelligent people [...] and the IQ-parameterized employment function is no longer what it was once cracked up to be. If you doubt it, just look at the people running things these days. They may run a little above average, but you’d better not be expecting to find any Aristotles or Newtons among them. Intelligence has been replaced in the job market with an increasingly poor substitute, possession of a college degree, and given that education has steadily given way to indoctrination and socialization as academic priorities, it would be naive to suppose that this is not dragging down the overall efficiency of society."

>>12182344
Radical Langanism with Kantian characteristics.

>>12167115
>smartest documented man alive, actual genius not an idiot savant, grew up in poverty and wasn't able to afford college despite having an IQ of 200
Really makes you think.
Low IQ rich people defend their lot in life with non-arguments such as yours. There is a reason why the extremely high IQ like Langan turn toward religion, because without it, he would try to take over the world and put you in your place.