[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 680 KB, 822x802, FF6D63A0-17EF-4509-A77C-97B889B6F0EA.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17741606 No.17741606[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why are IQ tests not standardized across all of life in order to procure the most top notch forms of human beings? Why do we have to suffer with this dim witted form of humanity which serves only a select few with the ability to procures a respective lifestyle outside of the need for work and advancement? How stupid is the average person?

>> No.17741659

>>17741606
>Why are IQ tests not standardized across all of life in order to procure the most top notch forms of human beings?
two main reasons are that dumb elites would lose positions to smarter proles and 'disparate impact'. I forget when they banned IQ test for job applications but it was sometime after the CRM

>> No.17741685

Forgot to add "books about IQ?"
We all know /lit/ is /pol/, just try to keep appearances at least.

>> No.17741702

>>17741606
>to procure the most top notch forms of human beings
because IQ does not actually equate to more intelligent or driven
>Why do we have to suffer with this dim witted form of humanity
somebody has to clean the toilets
>How stupid is the average person
take a look in the mirror

>> No.17741715

>>17741606
Most people who are good at things are good because they have cultivated it as a skill, not because they can recognize sequences of numbers and shapes

>> No.17741718
File: 31 KB, 601x508, 38EDEECC-F589-4CA0-A376-E706F3EFCE16.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17741718

>>17741702
>because IQ does not actually equate to more intelligent
>somebody has to clean the toilets
>take a look in the mirror

>> No.17741735

>>17741606
>Why do we have to suffer with this dim witted form of humanity
High intelligence people do not breed, either out of choice (which includes but is not limiited to anti-natalists) or because they fail to find mates.

>> No.17741738

>>17741718
you're not supposed to quote the person you're soiposting midwit

>> No.17741784
File: 155 KB, 1000x1000, sdfsdf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17741784

>>17741738
>you're not following the Soipost manual, listen to the experts

>> No.17741786

>>17741735
Intelligence can also randomly appear, and if you bar poor people who are poor by circumstances their intelligent children are doomed

>> No.17741805

>>17741735
holy cope

>> No.17741818

Fuck the enlightenists.

>> No.17741856

i suck at pattern recognizing tests. I can't even do the simpler ones.
yet
>top 10 of my class with 4.0 GPA
>6 AP courses including chem, calc, physics
>speak 3 languages, know 2 more and learning ancient greek.
>got a bachelor in phil(focus on formal logic, kant and game theory), languages and economics at a top two german uni (top 15 faculty world wide)

yet if iq pattern recognizing tests were standard i would be filtered out somehow.

>> No.17741872

>>17741856
Your passed the basics which, if taught well, set you up for the following requirements. You may be knowledgeable, but you aren’t smart.

>> No.17741882

>>17741856
just goes to show philosophy is not rigorous

>> No.17741887

>>17741718
What an eloquent refutation.

>> No.17741891

>>17741856
have you actually done an IQ test? id be surprised if you were really below average, but there are outliers anyway, it's not a perfect test

>> No.17741896

>>17741606
Literature.

>> No.17741906

>>17741856
>conflating academic success with intelligence
I say this with zero memetic ironic, peak brainlet.

>> No.17741913

>>17741896
And yet still the most important thread on all of 4chan.

>> No.17741922

>>17741606
if this ain't bait i hope for the love of god that you outgrow your edgy teenage eugenics phase some day

>> No.17741930

>>17741606
>Why are IQ tests not standardized across all of life in order to procure the most top notch forms of human beings?
Because social echelons are based on economic class not intelligence. Just the suggestion of potential inferiority in the elite is impermissible.

>> No.17741935

>>17741922
>pretending for even a moment eugenics wouldn't massively benefit the world
>implying your average 85 IQ moron has the same right to life as me
Liberalism was a mistake.

>> No.17741947 [DELETED] 

>>17741606
IQ tests are shit and only further one particular kind of stem person. Stuff like this, valuing smarts, creates a kind of technocracy.

People wish for that, certainly, but I suppose these people have no clue or have never actually been at a university, seeing what kind of people study and teach there. If you really want to see a technocracy look at Europe, Germany in particular.
Not a failed state by any means, far better working (for the people) than the performance behemoths of Capital America and Anti-Freedom Concentration Camp China; but nonetheless pretty bad.

Imagine government being just as a modern university with stem majors running the military and social programs, social majors running the economy and social services. Philosophers and economists are a rare sight. It makes me sick just thinking about it.
Nerds running the government. What a shame.

>> No.17741960

>>17741891
i suck at them.
already when younger there were pattern recognizing exercises in the newspaper and my mother who is "only" a history and politics teacher would find them quickly and I wouldn't get it till someone explained it. Anytime they get posted somewhere I try and see if I figure it out and always end up guessing. I fall flat on my nose everytime pretty much.
>>17741906
>>17741872
So I can follow Hegel to a dime but not see a pattern in 8 images of different colored circles?
I can learn AND employ the grammar of a foreign language but intelligence is actually only necessary for seeing how the pattern went circular and not diagonal this time or whatever. IQ tests is a skill like solving a specific type of questions on a physics exam where you need to tweak the equations to fit the formulas. You can do it or you can't.
>>17741882
>t. american

>> No.17741980

>>17741685
The nature of human intelligence
Intelligence: VSI
The neuroscience of intelligence
The g factor
The bell curve
That book by John carol in the 90s
Making sense of heritability

Definitely think it’s worth reading stuff like mismeasure of man and the much publicised fractionating of human intelligence for contrast as well even if it’s wrong

>> No.17741987

>>17741960
So you haven’t sat an actual iq test?

>> No.17741994

>>17741856
>GPA in high school is not hard to keep high
>AP courses are piss easy outside of maybe chem
>learning a language is easy
>>>>>philosophy major
No, your low IQ seems to be par for the course

>> No.17741995

>>17741960
maybe you just have terrible spatial IQ and higher verbal IQ or something idk

>> No.17742013
File: 102 KB, 430x441, d3c.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17742013

>>17741995
>different types of intelligence

>> No.17742016

>>17741947
>I suppose these people have no clue or have never actually been at a university, seeing what kind of people study and teach there
You have a stupid people with big egos problem which, if truly smart people inhabited such positions of education, would be entirely limited and controlled through technologies of behavior.
> Not a failed state by any means
If you don’t live in a failed state as most intelligent people find themselves in given the abundance within the intelligent deviation yet a substantial lack thereof within the material demographic.
> Philosophers and economists are a rare sight
A problem of desire

>> No.17742025

>>17741987
no, I have not. I am jsut stating how these pattern recognition tests are impossible for me.
I never did many standardized tests either beyond the PSAT (where I did well but nothing extraordinary), because I didn't need them; only took it because it was mandatory.
>>17741995
I did AP calc and physics. Both require spatial IQ and (AP) Chemistry does so to the max.
>>17741994
>>GPA in high school is not hard to keep high
I was top 10 out of ~350 in my class though and wasnt one of those "only biology, algebra and then english Lang or arts classes" kid. If its so easy why was I above the other kids who managed this easy task?

>> No.17742027

>>17742013
you don't know anyhting about IQ do you lel

>> No.17742036

>>17742013
>pattern recognition
>processing speed
>working number
>arithmetic reasoning
If you say EQ I will shoot you.

>> No.17742076

>>17741659
>dumb elites
You really are lost, aren't you? It's no longer the 18th century and we aren't talking about inherited college positions in Yale. These days the meritocrats are ruling the country and transmitting their wealth and dynasties through education, effort and merit, unlike a sad sack of crap like yourself drifting through a heap of BS on a vietnamese basked-weaving forum to one-upmanship low IQ peasants that didn't quite get what the latest meme book was going on about. Great job, you fucker, you.

>> No.17742084

>>17742076
>Great job, you fucker, you.
lmao

>> No.17742105

>>17742076
People still buy their way into Ivy schools and then get positions from connections, you are just wrong

>> No.17742133

>>17741606
If everyone was intelligent, there would be nobody left to fight in wars and the nation with dumbasses would win.

>> No.17742152
File: 77 KB, 693x448, 141881-full.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17742152

>>17741702
>because IQ does not actually equate to more intelligent or driven
i am a great example of a high iq lazy retard

>> No.17742158

>>17742025
in the land of the apes the man with one brain cell is king

>> No.17742179

>>17742105
Money is involved, of course, but proportionally it has shifted in favor of those who are getting in through their own merit (even if their capabilities (IQ, abstract thinking, top-tier info and personality characteristics (like discipline)) are attained through expensive and rigorous training programs in private schools). It would be arrogant to assume that the elites didn't know in this day and age what to do and how to control the populace - and no, I'm not talking about the middle-class professionals like engineers, journalists and such. Wake up, sheeple! You aren't in control and you have neither any arguments against nor any means of opposing those who are in power atm.

>> No.17742184 [DELETED] 

>>17742133
>we need a big supply of stupid people for the wars
looks like somebody didn't read the NSCAI report which talked about embedding machine learning engineers in military units

>> No.17742187

>>17741606
>another retard who thinks he knows better than educators

>> No.17742196

>>17742105
jared kushner is still probably smarter than you, and i doubt you could run any of this companies

>> No.17742201

>>17742179
Then why did you disagree with me, there are many people in elite positions who would lose them in a purely meritocratic system.

>> No.17742205

>>17741606
>Why are IQ tests not standardized across all of life in order to procure the most top notch forms of human beings?
they arent totally accurate

>> No.17742208

>>17742196
This has nothing to do with whether what I said was true or not, I could have an IQ of 55 and it would still be true.

>> No.17742209

>>17742201
name some

>> No.17742226

>>17742179
>Money is involved, of course, but proportionally it has shifted in favor of those who are getting in through their own merit
>Source: my ass

>> No.17742231

>>17742201
one of the meritocratic tests is figuring out how to get into elite positions. doing some pattern matching multiple choice problems on a quiz and then being handed the keys to the corner office is the farthest thing from a meritocracy imaginable.

>> No.17742234

>>17742231
There are more factors than IQ relevant to success, it just correlates with success.

>> No.17742236
File: 50 KB, 600x800, 0ae.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17742236

>>17742027
>>17742036
>dude jamal is actually really smart!! sure he MIGHT have failed calculus and history and physics and chemistry and music and programming and has worse literacy than my dog but dude there's SO many types of intelligence he's good at one of them!

>> No.17742241

>>17742226
>people with money have educational and career advantages
people who eat more nutritious food also have education and career advantages, it doesn't make it not meritocratic, should we force everyone to eat fruit loops for breakfast so every kid is fat with adhd? would that make it more or less meritocratic?

>> No.17742245

>>17742209
the heirs to the Walton fortune

>> No.17742246

>>17742187
>the teachers know how to teach

>> No.17742248

>>17742245
what position of power are they in? they don't even run the company

>> No.17742253

>>17742036
Scoring major differences in some areas of the IQ test means you probably have a mental illness

>> No.17742255

>>17742241
Bro if your dad's rich you can literally just go with him, donate money to any given Ivy league uni and get in through the backdoor. No tests, no competition, no anything. It's that simple. You are an absolute retard for thinking that we live in a "meritocracy", whatever that means. "Meritocracy" is what rich, fat merchants call genociding the aristocrats and expropriating their wealth for themselves. Meritocracy is when rich, fat merchants run the show, not when the most talented run the show.

>> No.17742256

>>17742241
Not being able to buy your way into university would make it more meritocratic, but you can't get rid of the effect of having good connections without some kind of totalitarian system forcing everyone to use a standardized hiring metric, which would cause more harm than good.

>> No.17742271

>>17742236
I wouldn't be so confident, Anglo. Chang Zhang#0190419 is better at Maths than everyone on this board, and you know it.

>> No.17742272

>>17742226
Read Markovits' The Meritocracy Trap, you bitch! You clearly do not know what you are arguing against, so eat a dick, mmmkay?

>>17742201
Because a response telling someone "you are just wrong" explains nothing and convinces literally no one. Even if the elite class are buying their way into the top positions, it is by no means happening strictly through the conventional means of inheriting an industry or property like it did decades past. To a contemporary elite that doesn't mean shit if they can merely out-compete everyone around them!

>> No.17742277

>>17742256
>rich people buy their way into ivy's
cope. did you not just see all those lame parents get sent to prison last year for trying to buy admissions into elite schools for their failsons?

>> No.17742278

>>17742253
What do you know about range of motion?

>> No.17742285

>>17742272
But you were 'just wrong', you sperged out about how there are no elites who are basically just given their positions, when there clearly are.

>> No.17742309

>>17742285
> there are no elites who are basically just given their positions, when there clearly are.
But that's just the thing! On paper they aren't "just given" those positions. On paper they are doing that "fair and square", but nobody seems to take into account the fact that today most of the rich kids are given a proper education before they are even going to participate in the "real life" meritocratic competition for places in college and other "glossy" jobs.

>> No.17742321

>>17742309
There is no 'on paper' that can account for having connections that open the door to a position in the first place

>> No.17742347

>>17742321
but what if i told you having good social skills is ... part of the meritocracy?

>> No.17742350

>>17742347
Your father knowing a guy is not your social skills

>> No.17742356

>>17742271
the only thing tripfaggots are better at than anyone is tripping over the enormous amounts of penis they suck daily, don't lie to yourself

>> No.17742398

>>17742350
cope

>> No.17742477

>>17742321
Right! And you can't build the necessary connections for advancing your career, unless you've managed to get into the top tier, high-ranking educational, cultural and social hubs that nowadays are the elite schools. Just look at Bill Gates - a guy who when through prestigious, private preschools, got into Harvard and made the necessary connections for him to be able to drop Harvard and pursue his own thing. And he's by no means the only such instance of meritocratic sociability achieved through elite preschool training and rearing! Politicians of various backgrounds are merely confirming the rule! Kennedies, Clintons and Bushes for example have all attended prestigious preschools and boarding schools before being offered a position at any of the top universities of the time. It doesn't get any clearer than this! "On paper" everything functions as it should, but guess what? If you're out of the inner circles, you're at a significant disadvantage when pursuing, for instance, a career in academics. You will never win the game, but hey! At least the rules are fair, right? Right?!

>> No.17742529

>>17742477
but what if someone raised from day one in elite preschools actually has more merit than you? do you suppose someone who spent their whole life in elite private schools is going to have more ability and skills than someone whose parents let them be raised by the tv? you can argue meritocracy isn't fair, but you seem to be arguing it isn't "true meritocracy" because your dad didn't have much to offer, sad? sure, unfair\? yeah, unmeritocratic? not necessarily.

>> No.17742555

>>17742477
see >>17742350

>> No.17742631

>>17742529
>you seem to be arguing it isn't "true meritocracy" because your dad didn't have much to offer
You're right on point. It isn't "true meritocracy", not until 100% inheritance tax has been introduced to the wider society. There will never be fair competition nor true justice as long as family dynasties are allowed to exist that perpetuate their existence through unmeritocratic means. And no matter how much mental gymnastics you're willing to put up with or exercise, no matter how much physical squirming you're about to do in order to circle around the sacrosant right at hand, will discredit the right, pure and proper path laid before you. Not a single thing! For a truly egalitarian society to emerge, the introduction of a 100% inheritance tax is necessary and inevitable. There is no other way.

>> No.17742662

>>17742555
>Your father knowing a guy is not your social skills
Where did I ever deny that? Point to me the exact paragraph or phrase where I even remotely could have suggested the denial of something like that.

>> No.17742664

>>17742631
That wouldn't make society egalitarian and it practically speaking would be impossible, the people actually running the country would figure out ways to give their children wealth and power.

>> No.17742673

>>17742662
You were saying the rules were fair but they're not, there aren't any such rules. A company doesn't have to use a standardized test for its hiring process that would prevent it from giving the job to someone who knows the owners. That would be a 'meritocratic' policy about hiring, which I'm not advocating, I'm just pointing out.

>> No.17742675

>>17742631
>100% inheritance tax
steve jobs died quite young but his daughter was already done with harvard by then and his son was in stanford. what would confiscating all his wealth after the fact do to improve the meritocracy?

>> No.17742689

>>17741606
Suppose we did scrap everything and had a hypothetical test/set of tests that adequately sorted people by aptitude - a true meritocracy.

Wouldn't those with the most economic and state power just pervert the system and lump their mediocre progeny (assuming inherited aptitude is at least somewhat random) in with next generations best ones? Wouldn't this tend to be a reflection of economic resources anyway, given that nutrition (etc) improves mental outcomes, or that the score could be gamed by tutors?

>> No.17742695

>>17742673
also, do you really think companies make a habit out of hiring moronic children of their buddies? recruiting talent is a major part of entrepreneurship. this stuff about everyone with a job has a rich dad smells really copey

>> No.17742735

>>17742695
Buddy, how old are you, really? If you can say without any irony at all that knowing the boss who can vouch for you during the hiring process isn't a massive leg up, I don't know what to say.

>do you really think companies make a habit out of hiring moronic children of their buddies

Keeping an important client or colleague happy (big returns) vs. getting slightly less output from an entry level position (predictable, minor returns)? Yeah, they're going to risk a relationship with a client or an important contact because one of the disposable grunts won't be able to stare at spreadsheets as effectively. If they're really important, the kid won't be without some pedigree anyway (top school, good internships, etc)

>> No.17742739

>>17742695
>having connections can get you job
>everyone with a job has a rich dad
That's not how basic logic works

>> No.17742752

>>17742739
and that's why your argument is not logical
>a couple rich guys got into yale even though they weren't that bright
oh no, let's just cancel america and switch to authoritarian testism where you take an array of multiple choice quizzes in order to do take a shit so no one gets an unfair adantage

>> No.17742756

>>17742739
your argument also seems to have this baked in assumption that if we went 100 percent meritocracy your station in life would go up, but if that were true you would have already nailed the sats, gone to stanford, and be grinding code late into the night for big bucks instead of shitposting here. if we switched to a "true" meritocracy, you'll still be a loser, i'm sorry anon.

>> No.17742769

>>17742756
>instead of shitposting here
at least we can keep each other company :3

>> No.17742773

>>17742752
I didn't say to cancel america, I didn't propose anything at all. I said that there are elites who are more or less just given their jobs.
>>17742756
I think you are just wildly imagining things because I didn't say anything about that either

>> No.17742777

This isn’t even remotely literature related, what the fuck?

>> No.17742784

>>17742673
Ah, alright. I must admit that I was focusing more on the process of applying for positions in universities and colleges instead of jobs in companies. As far as I understand, nepotistic and cronyistic practices have been ruled out - maybe not absolutely, but to such a significant degree that it doesn't even merit further deliberation. But yes, on further consideration, perhaps the fairness of rules doesn't hold for businesses - but maybe it should?

>>17742675
>what would confiscating all his wealth after the fact do to improve the meritocracy?
What good goes all that wealth do to them if they've already won the game of meritocratic competition?

>>17742664
>That wouldn't make society egalitarian
Of course it would! The US is basically a plutocracy at this point, so of course eliminating the unequal accumulation of vehicles of power will make the society more politically egalitarian. The rich elite are exercising more political power when it comes to policies that would hurth said class' power. There has even been a study pinpointing this exact dynamic in the policy making of US government!

>> No.17742789

>>17742777
you must be new here

>> No.17742793

>>17742773
>guy completes harvard mba
>just given a job when he graduates
truly unfair

>> No.17742794

>>17742784
>Of course it would! The US is basically a plutocracy at this point, so of course eliminating the unequal accumulation of vehicles of power will make the society more politically egalitarian.
It would remove existing structures of inequality and set up others, what those new structures are would determine whether the ensuing society would be more or less equal than the one it was replacing. It is probably reasonable to assume it would be more equal at least for a while, since inequality has a way of building on itself over time.

>> No.17742802

>>17742398
>>17742347
>>17742309
>>17742272
There sure are a lot of deluded self-contradicting cunts around here. Is /lit/ the dumbest board after /b/?

>> No.17742803

>>17742777
feeling a little btfo and crying for the ref? aww

>> No.17742805

>>17741606
thats quite anti-semitic

>> No.17742810

>>17742793
The unfairness is related to what kind of companies he could get an interview with and how likely they are to take him vs. some other equally qualified guy without connections. You seem to think I'm making an argument that nobody earns their station in life, I am really saying nothing of the sort, there has been a great deal of meritocratic social mobility over the past century, and it was literally always a factor even for peasants.

>> No.17742819

>>17742802
>There sure are a lot of deluded self-contradicting cunts around here.
Not an argument.

>> No.17742824

>>17742819
i'll give you an argument faggot

>> No.17742827

>>17741606
This fucking board is turning into /sci/.

>> No.17742830

>>17741606
Off-topic

>> No.17742840

>>17742810
why do you seethe so hard about this? if you can't get a job, maybe instead of bitching on here all day, go to whatever bullshit alumni club your school has in your city, and see if some dude who was in your data structures class in '17 knows anybody that's hiring.

>> No.17742842

>>17742824
Well, then go ahead! I'll be w8ing here as long as it takes, faggot.

>> No.17742848

>>17742827
This is an undercover /pol/ thread

>> No.17742852

>>17742840
I haven't seethed about anything, I've pointed out an uncontroversial fact about the value of having connections. You are honesty the one who seems mad and keeps resorting to insulting me instead of discussing the subject

>> No.17742854

>>17742789
No, but I’d at least expect some effort in my off topic shitposts. At least the antinatalist faggots have the decency to post the cover of that book by the South African dude none of them have read.
>>17742803
I have no idea what you’re talking about, you need to have sex

>> No.17742857

>>17742848
Sorry, forgot to sage.

Tourists out, thanks. Back to Facebook with the lot of you cunts.

>> No.17742867

>>17742810
>equally qualified guy
woah woah woah, hold up now, if they're both equally qualified then what difference does it matter from a merit perspective which candidate gets hired? in fact, since the hiring manager knows the family culture of one candidate it's less risky to hire the known candidate. so why would they bother to hire some rando spamming them with resumes that might be fake when they have a known candidate who is trustworthy?

>> No.17742873

>>17742852
when i said social skills and networking are part of merit you fell back on "but their dads are rich!"

>> No.17742874

>>17742842
This reminds of the Draggan paradox

>> No.17742877

>>17742867
The point is the threshold of competency that results in acceptance is lower in the case of having connections

>> No.17742887

>>17742873
Yes I pointed out an example of the value of having connections, since that was my argument. The fact that social skills and networking help to get jobs doesn't make that not true.

>> No.17742893

>>17742877
so if companies that hire based on connection are hiring poor candidates shouldn't they be punished by the market when they fail to perform competitively? seems like a self-correcting problems to me

>> No.17742902

>People in this thread really saying connections aren't a gigantic part of your economic station.

I always knew this place was overran with high schoolers, but jesus.

>> No.17742903 [SPOILER] 
File: 80 KB, 445x600, 1615351374478.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17742903

>> No.17742911

>>17742893
you would see something like that, the effect might not be that large though since having a handful of incompetents doesn't sink a company

>> No.17742912 [SPOILER] 
File: 175 KB, 736x736, 1615351470849.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17742912

>> No.17742913

>>17742794
Arguably yes. I'm not claiming that inequality could be absolutely eradicated, nor would that be my final aim. What is at stake here is the unity of the nation and the principle of equality of opportunity - it's not much of an equal competition if one can ensure his/her children's economic future for life through $10 000+ private lessons etc. while the parents of another family can't muster more than $100 for their children's leisurly educational activities/lessons.

>> No.17742919

>>17742902
your merit results in connections. if you have a computer science phd from stanford, guess what, a lot of people with access to resources are going to be interested in connecting with you
>inb4 something about rich dads

>> No.17742923

>>17742893
you're assuming that an entry-level employee has any noticeable impact on company performance. the companies in position to hire their mates' kids are simply maintaining and strengthening key relationships, these companies are already more successful.

>seems like a self-correcting problems to me

corruption is famously known to be corrected by the free market

>> No.17742925

Stop responding to the off-topic threads, retards.

>> No.17742931

>>17742913
I'd agree though I think the most important drivers of inequality in recent decades are more related to high level financial fuckery than inherited wealth per se. Of course they are both factors, and there are other factors

>> No.17742933

>>17742925
Back to twitter with you faggot

>> No.17742935

>>17742631
lmao i love encountering this kind of retard. you guys get bit by some random ideological bug and keep telling everyone it will solve the problems

>> No.17742945

>>17742919
>About four in 10 students from the top 0.1 percent attend an Ivy League or elite university, roughly equivalent to the share of students from poor families who attend any two- or four-year college.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

Yes, having wealthy parents makes you far more likely to attend a top school. The point is that, holding the children equivalent, the one born into resources is going to have much more opportunities to build a strong application. A degree from an elite school has a large family wealth factor built into it. Why is this controversial?

>> No.17742946
File: 16 KB, 245x405, The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy_(1967_cover).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17742946

>>17742925
it's implied that we're talking about the implications of this book

>> No.17742953

>>17742945
so what if those students had more merit? you seem to have this belief or expectation that merit will somehow be miraculously evenly distributed across the population

>> No.17742954

>>17742935
>lmao i love encountering this kind of retard. you guys get bit by some random ideological bug and keep telling everyone it will solve the problems
Not an argument. If you don't have a counter-argument, you might as well stfu, because you aren't contributing to the discussion in any way whatsoever. By all means, challenge me, but do it with compelling arguments. You won't change my mind by hauling insults, faggot.

>> No.17742955

>>17742919
I'm not sure why you're incapable of grasping that what you're saying can be true and unearned connections mattering can also be true at the same time.

>> No.17742959

>>17742945
>roughly equivalent to the share of students from poor families who attend any two- or four-year college.
they give 4/10 slots away to poor people? wow

>> No.17742967

>>17742919
>Confidential college transcripts and test scores obtained by the Washington Post reveal that neither presidential candidate, George W. Bush nor Al Gore, were shining students during their college days at Yale and Harvard, respectively. Although each earned respectable scores on the SAT college admissions test (a total of 1355 of 1600 for Gore and 1206 for Bush), neither did that well in their college courses. Both earned a mix of B and C grades. Gore's lowest grade of D came in a natural sciences course, while his top grades were an A in French and English, an A in Visual and Environmental Studies, and an A- in Social Relations. Bush's lowest marks were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology and a 71 in Economics, while his highest scores were High Passes in History and Japanese.
>Bush at Yale
>SAT Verbal Score: 566 (of 800)
>SAT Math Score: 640 (of 800)

>Gore at Harvard
>SAT Verbal Score: 625 (of 800)
>SAT Math Score: 730 (of 800)


>730 (of 800)
>Source: Washington Post
>March 19, 2000

Dumb fuck.

>> No.17742976

>>17742945
This can be easily written off by saying wealth is correlated with intelligence, so of course the most intelligent people will have intelligent kids who attend ivy league schools.

>> No.17742977

>>17742954
> I'm glad to see stories like this. My brother, please tell me .....
Iser tune. Unless there is a big discussion, you have a friend because you were not involved in the conversations. It is difficult though, but with simple speech. However, they are no different from driving.

>> No.17742979

>>17742953
Yes, it's a massive coincidence that more students from the top 0.1% went to an Ivy than did from the bottom 60%. Just a simple case of merit and sheer hard work from the CEO-in-waiting.

>> No.17742982

>>17742967
the american people could voted for ralph nader instead, but i guess they didn't care that al gore's dad was rich, just who had policies they preferred.

>> No.17742983

>>17742931
Agreed. I never thought it was some kind of miraculous remedy or all-purpose fix for economic and political inequality, but I'd be willing to contend that it is among at least the top 7 factors at play. Of course it's idealistic, but a major rationale behind the 100% inheritance tax is that it discourages ppl from overtly accumulating wealth, as it serve pretty much no one's personal interests, if you can't transmit it to your children or relatives.

>> No.17742986

>>17742967
>Bush's lowest marks were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology and a 71 in Economics, while his highest scores were High Passes in History and Japanese.
wait, so he was a weeaboo?
also kek at a future US president getting a barely passing grade in economics, what the fuck happened to us

>> No.17742989

>>17742976
Not even going to bother you towards the volume of studies done on economic equity and college applications. Is this all some massive cope on your part that your high IQ self will inevitably rise to the top because we live in a pure meritocracy?

>> No.17743002

>>17742979
so they should hire a bad candidate with less merit because it would be more fair? well, i suppose that's a nice sentiment, and some of what the recent push for "equity" is about, but this is not meritocracy, "true" or otherwise.

>> No.17743004

>>17742983
Out of curiosity why a 100% tax instead of say a cutoff above a certain amount of inheritance? It is hard to get most people to not want to give their children whatever they can, and for the majority of the population it's not a lot of money. There is also the issue of passing on money before death to get around inheritance tax

>> No.17743005

>>17742982
The point is, the most powerful positions are not necessarily filled by the best and the brightest, which supports that other anon's point about connections. Unfortunately voters are easily manipulated by advertising and smear campaigns, so it's not as simple as "the voters preferred their policies". I don't think most Americans could name 5 policies Trump had, all they knew was he took two scoops of ice cream and said "pussy" one time.

>> No.17743012

>>17742983
so say someone has a controlling share in a major company like say the brin brothers who control a majority of google shares, when they die and the government confiscates their wealth what happens? google becomes a state owned enterprise? or does the government auction off the shares in some kind of weird pseudo ipo? do they just pick a day and dump them all on the market? i think there could be some unintended consequences.

>> No.17743015

Midwit thread.

>> No.17743018

>>17742989
Nope, not a cope, and you shouldn't argue ad hominem because it makes you look like a fag

>economic equity and college applications
again, easily explained by the connection between intelligence and wealth

>> No.17743023

>>17743005
but the government is a democracy not a meritocracy so i'm not sure that even applies to this. most presidents are exceedingly tall, that certainly is no merit, but if no one wants to vote for a short guy, idk what policy we are going to enact to remedy this unfairness

>> No.17743027

>>17743015
so your gay? is that it, huh? why are you crying? what? you'll piss yourself, huh? maybe shit your pants? cry a lot? huh? your really gay? huh?

>> No.17743031
File: 9 KB, 229x220, 1607548023149.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17743031

>he thinks the Philosopherking is measured by iq alone
LOL.

>> No.17743033

>>17743027
Yes I am gay and yes I am proud to be gay.

>> No.17743044

>>17743033
well well well, dubs confirm---your gay. is it true you just shat yourself as well? (I already know the answer, just wondering if you've noticed.....)

>> No.17743070

>>17743023
The government is part of society, not separate from it, and no one under 6ft should be permitted to run for office.

>> No.17743072

>>17743044
No but if I did I wouldn't shower for a week

>> No.17743081

>>17743023
I just had the amusing thought of 'blind elections'. Each candidate has to shitpost in a chatroom and the nation watches the thread unfold.

>> No.17743084

>>17743072
but you haven't showered for a week already; therefore??????

>> No.17743088

>>17743070
penispoos (you lov em)

>> No.17743097

>>17743088
HITLER DUBS CONFIRM OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH YOU EAT YOUR OWN PENISPOOS

>> No.17743098

>>17743084
I haven't showered in months

>> No.17743100

>>17743097
HAHA VERY BASED ANON

>> No.17743108

>>17743098
your in the shower right now, i can see you right now; your sitting down on your chair, looking at the screen ------- just out the shower (i can see you (your house is made of bricks))

>> No.17743115

>>17743108
I live under a bridge and I'm using the nearby mcdonald's wifi

>> No.17743117

>>17743070

>> No.17743127

>>17743115
yes and i'm the mcdonalds manager, just aboit to turn off the wifi (sad!)

>> No.17743137

>>17743127
I'll get you fired for being transphobic

>> No.17743140

>>17743070
I HEAR YOU LIKE TO,,, SHATTED YOUR PANTS? EWWWWW, THAT"S REALLY "WEIRD" WOW..... WHO, ARE YOU????????--------------------- AGENT PERSEY UBOMPA (FBI)

>> No.17743144

you can tell this thread went on way too long now everyone has become giddy

>> No.17743146

>>17743137
and i'll get you fired for posting on 4chan, the infamous neonazi intenet lair

>> No.17743166

>>17743146
I'm doing my part to change this chud central to heckin cute and valid

>> No.17743168

>>17743004
>Out of curiosity why a 100% tax instead of say a cutoff above a certain amount of inheritance?
To put it bluntly, it is so that - out of principle - you can't benefit from your relatives' effort.
> It is hard to get most people to not want to give their children whatever they can
And that's essentially the root of the problem. How much injustice has been unleashed because someone "did it for the family"? How often does power stay within a family or transmitted through bloodlines? I am not saying that people shouldn't care for their families, but there is a limit to what you can do in the name of family.
>, and for the majority of the population it's not a lot of money
Of course, but for the elites even a 90% inheritance tax could in principle leave them with hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the sum of the inheritance. That's why it has to be all the way.
>There is also the issue of passing on money before death to get around inheritance tax
You are right,and of course parents would still be necessitated to take care of their children under this meritocratic regime, but I'd presume there were some reasonable conditions that prohibited parents from transmitting conspicuous sums of wealth to their children. What those specific conditions would be, I can't say for certain. What would you consider to be reasonable parameters?

>> No.17743178

>>17743166
cant happen, wont happen, never happen---------your hereby under arrest for being a transnazi--------------AGENT PERSEY UBOMPA (FBI)

>> No.17743201

>>17743168
It would be best if people could only procreate once per generation, all in the same year. That way the government could handle all the children equally -- distributing them randomly to parents so there would be no biological (aka arbitrary) bloodlines for people to get hung up on.

>> No.17743204

>>17743012
>so say someone has a controlling share in a major company like say the brin brothers who control a majority of google shares, when they die and the government confiscates their wealth what happens? google becomes a state owned enterprise? or does the government auction off the shares in some kind of weird pseudo ipo? do they just pick a day and dump them all on the market? i think there could be some unintended consequences.
Arguably you've raised some good points to consider... I've always pictured that the government would temporarily "confiscate" all such assets, but not to turn private businesses into state-owned ones. What I would imagine to happen is that the state (in cooperation with the business) would, in the case of a family business, assing a suitable candidate to overlook the business until the heir (if s/he's willing to continue) has proven himself through educational prowess (i.e. earned a master's in economics, for instance) to be capable of carrying out the business. In case of stock shares, I'd presume that they were auctioned off by the government, but, like you said, it might have some unintended consequences which I can't even begin to imagine here.

>> No.17743206

.

>> No.17743214

>>17743204
>it might have some unintended consequences which I can't even begin to imagine here.
yeah maybe

>> No.17743219

>>17743204

>> No.17743223

>>17743214
YOU JUST SHAT YOURSELF

>> No.17743240

>>17743201
Which is basically like Plato's republic, yeah. Of course, that's the ideal, but I'd like to think that such radical measures wouldn't be required, as long as the citizens are educated properly on their as well as the nation's needs.

>> No.17743241

>>17743204
UNFORTUNATE, TO SAY THE LEAST? SHATTED BEANS ALL OVER THE KEYBOARD, HUH? YOU SHAT YOURSELF? YOUR GONNA PISS YOURSELF, HUH? HUH? YOU LIKE TO DO THAT? INTERESTING, VERY INTERESTING.

>> No.17743242

>>17743168
>Of course, but for the elites even a 90% inheritance tax could in principle leave them with hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the sum of the inheritance. That's why it has to be all the way.
you could just cap it at an absolute value, 10k, or 100k, or whatever. You'd have to adjust it with inflation and whatever. You really would run into trouble with trying to get parents to not buy their children stuff though, it's honestly just kind of deeply unnatural. Having a cap on personal wealth almost makes more sense than a cap on inheritance or you have to go and micro-manage how people interact with their kids.

And I don't have any opinions myself tbqh. I would be interested in seeing the results of a country that tried this.

>> No.17743245

>>17743240
>>17743242
PENISPOOS

>> No.17743262

>>17743240
>>17743242
LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA I CANT HEAR YOU I CANT HEAR YOU LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA I CANT HEAR YOU I CAN HEAR YOU I CANT HEAR YOU

>> No.17743266

>>17743240
Agreed. It's so annoying that people can be afraid of a little education though

>> No.17743276

>>17743266
LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA

>> No.17743284

>>17743276
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA, GOOD ONE, HA-HA-HA-HA-HA, VERY NICE, HA-HA-HA

>> No.17743299

>>17743284
THANK YOU, THANK YOU

>> No.17743312

>>17743242
>you could just cap it at an absolute value, 10k, or 100k, or whatever
I mean, yeah. It would sound reasonably, but personally I think I'd rather stick with a 100% inheritance tax out of principle, at least initially for like a hundread years so that the rich class' status and power would be totally decimated. After that a 5-10k inheritance wouldn't probably affect the overall political and economic equilibirum.

>You really would run into trouble with trying to get parents to not buy their children stuff though, it's honestly just kind of deeply unnatural.
Yeah, I know. There is no easy way of selling the idea, but I think it would be the right thing to do. I don't have further arguments to give, because it's basically a question of values at this point.

>I would be interested in seeing the results of a country that tried this.
A man can dream...

>> No.17743316

>>17743266
Yep. I wish the government could set up some sort of mandatory educational program that get parents to realize their children aren't all that special. If you don't pass, you don't procreate. It's as simple as that.

>> No.17743324

>>17743312
>>17743316
YOU EAT PENISPOOS

>> No.17743334

>>17743324
CONFIRMED

>> No.17743343

>>17743334
THANK YOU

>> No.17743345
File: 947 KB, 6000x5067, 27954hugwiel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17743345

Oh /lit/, I'm sorry, I'm so sorry.. for all the shitposts, lazy brain-dead arguments, and butthurt angst. Please go back to the old you... I can't stand to see you like this.

>> No.17743352

>>17743266
>Agreed. It's so annoying that people can be afraid of a little education though
To be honest, the kind of education we're talking about here isn't so "little", and I think that the citizenry should be, at least to some degree, critical of the government, but what I've imagined a meritocracy would be like, is a system where basically every aspect of society is run through the formula of "talent + effort". If you're a 10/10 plumber, you'd be able to vote on policies concerning said infrastructure, and if you're a psychiatrist, you'd be able to vote on matters of pedagogy and publich health.

>> No.17743377

>>17743352
In other words, basically a nation where everyone recognizes the common good and actively partakes in it through the field in which he has attained the necessarily qualifications for him or her to be able to vote on said field's matters, so no "special education for parents" would be needed.

>> No.17743400

>>17743345
THE IMAGE DEPICTS YOU SHATTING YOUR PANTS

>> No.17743402

>>17743352
Now I'm just spit-balling here, but who's going to be making the laws for people to vote on?

>> No.17743416

>>17743402
HA, SPIT-BALLING, LIKE SEMEN IN YOUR MOUTH FROM MY BALLS

>> No.17743437

>>17743402
I don't know is it the tiredness or some sudden instance of verbal retardation, but I don't quite get your question. Could you open it up just a teeny tiny bit?

>> No.17743442

>>17743437
OPEN UP THESE BALLS IN YOUR MOUTH

>> No.17743450

>>17743437
>>17743442
HA-HA YOUR GAY

>> No.17743459

>>17743312
Hey man, I don't mean to be rude, but are you on the spectrum?

>> No.17743472

>>17743459
Ömm.... No, I don't think so? Is there something that in particular strikes as autistic, or how did you mean?

>> No.17743502

>>17743472
Yeah a lot of your way to restructure society seems inhuman and cruel. I thought you might have an empathy problem or something. It's an interesting theory but I don't see it working out due to basic human nature. Maybe when an AI takes over though, aha

>> No.17743517

>>17743502
What the fuck, you're full of shit.... Calling me autistic? Oh btw "inhuman and cruel" is not an argument you fucking asshole.

>> No.17743535

>>17743502
>Yeah a lot of your way to restructure society seems inhuman and cruel
Fair enough, but don't you personally think that people are involving emotions way too often in various kinds of decision makings - especially in politics? Wouldn't it be nice that things were to the most sensible degree "fair" and rational? Because that's all I'm trying to get at with these theoretical conjectures. They probably won't ever come to fruition, but at least I can't make the excuse that "there's no alternative to the way things currently are". Because there's always another way. It's mostly a question of will.

>> No.17743537

>>17743517
Oh sorry, I wasn't arguing.

>> No.17743543

>>17743537
Yeah you were.... you literally called me autistic you fucking asshole. Some people, fuck.

>> No.17743554

>>17743312
>I don't have further arguments to give, because it's basically a question of values at this point.
it's a very troubling question because the deep inequality of society clearly goes against most people's basic instincts, but the solutions(if they are even possible) also seem to do so. I guess more precisely I'd say that the inequality is a result of human nature playing out in an environment it did not evolve for(complex civilization), which therefore produces results, such as this inequality, that people don't want. There are also a fair amount of people who clearly don't care at all about inequality but I think it does really bother most people, we just don't have evolved instincts to deal with things of that scale, as opposed to like personal charity towards those we know.

>> No.17743567

>>17743502
>>17743537
>>17743554
Sorry mate, these >>17743543
>>17743517
aren't me. I'm >>17743535
>>17743472
>>17743352

>> No.17743568

>>17743535
Policy making today (where I'm from) seems devoid of emotion and focused on profit. If anything it's less human than I'd like it to be.
I think everyone agrees that severe wealth inequality is a problem; I don't think fixing it is a matter of will.

>> No.17743573

>>17743567
in addition to...
>>17742076 >>17742179 >>17742272
>>17742309 >>17742477 >>17742631 >>17742662
>>17742784 >>17742819
>>17742842 >>17742913
>>17742954 >>17742983 >>17743168
>>17743204 >>17743240 >>17743312 >>17743352>>17743377
>>17743437 >>17743472 >>17743535
All me.

>> No.17743581

>>17743567
>>17743573
Stop lying, you're not even me. Why are you pretending to be me?

>> No.17743592

>>17743581
Don't worry, I believe you.

>> No.17743598

>>17743568
I mean, we could benefit from the introduction of some kind of "social capitalism" with social safety nets and maybe even an UBI if the capital gained from 100% inheritance tax would grant that. In addition children could get significantly better education with that money, so that's probably the reason why I'm not considering these changes as "devoid of emotion".

>> No.17743601

>>17743598
I mean, at least not totally...

>> No.17743630

>>17743601
LIKE HOW YOU TOTALLY SHAT YOURSELF

>> No.17743631

>>17741718
>>17741606
imagine reducing yourself to some number and ignoring the whole complex as if it weren't much more important lol

>> No.17743639

>>17743631
why wouldn't it? considering man is made of them?

>> No.17743646

>>17743567
>>17743573
That's not you

>> No.17743647

>>17743639
>man is made of this dubious 1D description
you're too retarded to have this conversation if you are still an undisciplined realist

>> No.17743672

>>17743647
what do you mean? what is the "dubious 1D description" of which you speak?