• 1 Post
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle





  • not to double reply to you but the issue here isn’t training versus not training for the test; the issue is that psychiatrist and psychologist can’t rotely sort out what influences “training” and other activities actually had on the results of the test versus what a theoretical, “pure” test result would’ve been. frankly i’d imagine different psychologist in different context would want to control for this in a variety of ways. maybe in one experiment, telling the population not to train is the best way to get at the data you want. but for the most part? no. absolutely not. the claim that telling people to not train or study for an IQ test somehow is a be all end all control for wanton influences & noise in IQ results is total bunk. think about this. what even qualifies as studying for an IQ test? is the teenage boy incidentally studying for his ACT’s at the same time as a population IQ test, who consequently scored higher than the median average for his age range, cheating or invalid in his results? most people and psychology studies would likely say no, not really. this demonstrates some of the fundamental flaws in IQ and g-factor that psychologists have to recognize while working with them. there’s truly no real way to sort out what is “cheating/invalidating” on an IQ test versus what data is potentially legitimate. because objectively speaking, what IQ measures is incredibly subjective. on top of all that, either way, it’s impossible and impractical to try and control for every single thing people do in their daily lives.

    EDIT: stray “a” removed


  • the video annoys you because you’re not the target audience. you clearly already see validity in IQ as a metric and have use cases for it. most STEM people (veritasium’s audience writ large) do not traditionally view IQ favorably, and at worst consider it a worthless bunk metric. the video isn’t intended to say “hey! here’s how psychiatrist and psychologist view and use IQ in statistical analysis and their work (bc remember, STEM people know about this legitimate use in these fields, they just typically discount or look down upon it due to IQ’s reputation),” it’s intended to say “hey! i know you don’t think IQ is real/valid, but here is a video essay exploring the concept through a very STEM lense.” of course he talks about taking the test and studying for it. he talks about taking the test blind too. he’s a fucking engineer, physicist, and doctor. the exact kind of person to recognize what tools like IQ metrics actually are, and that there is no single one way to measure, use, or quantify this data that’s more “correct” than others, when divorced from context. veritasium demonstrated a very thorough understanding of the actual concepts and theoretical principles that underlie IQ, and I thought his video was a very fresh perspective. it certainly demonstrated a mastery of the concept that i believe is absent from someone who might hold the opinions you’re espousing here (genuinely don’t mean to come off as rude here sorry for having autism energy)









  • that’s a fair point and i wouldn’t necessarily disagree. honestly i suppose my point is more that when it comes to global issues, typically the largest multi-national organizations focused on them are based in the united states. there’s a lot more opportunities for global work here than elsewhere. that isn’t to say a lot of those same things exist in countries around the globe. but there is certainly a lot of global wealth and soft power focused around the american metropolises, and there’s no real reason to discount that. foreigners work in these nonprofits all the time. for a lot of people, working in these organizations is a capstone


  • inb4 all the comments immediately telling you it’s a bad idea i just wanna say that this isn’t a bad opportunity. america isn’t nearly as bad in day-to-day life as it seems and depending on your field you’ll almost certainly receive a large pay raise versus employment in canada. considering you can relocate anywhere in the US, cost of living shouldn’t be an issue. you very well might be able to find significantly lower cost of living in multiple american localities than in canada. if your benefits are good from your employer and can offset the costs of losing access to socialized medicine, you very well might be able to increase your gross income by a fairly significant amount. it just really amounts to playing your cards right and i’m getting the vibe you have a whole lot of wiggle room with your choices here. if you can square a lot of these issues away, america is a pretty great place to live all things considered. do realize you are entering a very volatile social atmosphere, however, and recognize you might become significantly “closer,” both physically and otherwise, to the primary major hotspots of global political instability. this isn’t necessarily bad, depending on you personally. there’s a unique opportunity for change in america currently, and it would be baseless to claim the mere existence of things like political activism, terrorism, gun violence, etc. inherently discount being here in principle. the vast majority of americans have never experienced an act of terror. in fact, if you care about a lot of global issues currently ongoing, then generally speaking america is likely your best bet for your activism or ideas to have significant impact



  • Would it be possible to modify the sorting feature so that it isn’t universal? In Apollo, unless I’m misremembering, I’m fairly certain the sorting would default back to a set sorting function, usually Hot or whatever the equivalent was. It might’ve been a setting called default sorting method, again my memory is hazy and I can’t exactly go check. I digress. This was convenient bc oftentimes when someone sorts by Top, Active, or Controversial it is only for the given instance they’re currently viewing, and they intend on viewing a specific sorting method generally while otherwise browsing. It would be nice as at least an option, if possible to implement easily.