Lower-IQ Grandmasters?

i am socially conservative (by european standards) and centrist by american standards if that wasnt obvious enough, but i am fiscally progressive in many ways, and supported Sanders since his fiscal policies are stronger than his social ones, esp since he also takes a reasonable view on 2nd amendment rights.

idk if i may be biased or not ( i dont think i am, but thats what most biased people think!)but i dont fit the left vs the right american politics spectrum neatly at all. Its not like i can get my ideological coolaid from the same birdnest.

a very refreshing stance to see, in these crazy times.

Do you deny that extremists on the right use I.Q. scores as reasons for discriminating against people?

I lean to the left, if it wasn't obvious by my Trump rantings.

But Trump hits a personal nerve with me, and that's with epistemology. Truth should not be determined by feelings, so demagogues are personally abhorrent to me... of course the left is not totally innocent either, but Trump... yuck.

i have personally never witnessed this.

on the contrary, the right tends to go the other direction, and take "a pull yourself from your bootstraps" mentality to the extreme.

Peterson makes a very interesting point that both the right and the left ignore the terrifying implications of iq in a global workplace that becomes more and more complex to remain competitive. According to him, a good 10 percent of the population has an IQ below the minimum to do ANY job in the armed forces and that those in the 10th percentile and below are deemed more of a cost than a gain for the military in ANY position. the analogy is that if the military cannot find ANYTHING to do with you as a potential recruit, then this will also extend to civilian workforce.

that was long, but this is peterson's point, regarding the left and right.

the right misunderstands this, and just tells you to suck it up and work harder without understanding that there is almost no job you can perform competitively at that level. You would be lucky to hold a job at that level.

the left go the other way and insist its all nurture, and that we can train individuals to be virtually anything with the right upbringing, which the military research clearly shows otherwise.

he explains this in this 3 minute video if anyone is interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk

?????

The right does not only have the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps stance. Some on the right (some of the "race realists") actually take a compassionate, realistic, pragmatic approach, like vocational schools. 

The left moved people away from channeling students into IQ-appropriate studies, and pushed the view that anyone can do anything. 

They might (in some cases) have been motivated by compassion, but it ends up being a pseudoscientific mess. 

I personally witnessed the tragic results of pushing a guy into university math courses when he simply did not have the brain for it. I've seen a number of similar examples, including a classmate who had a nervous breakdown trying to keep up with a pack of guys with higher IQs. 

The word intelligence gets in the way. It would be better to subdivide the concept and refine the categories. It would clear up a lot of confusion and reactions. 

True intelligence is....

What? 

[Good luck defining it. If you can, please also define love, freedom, God, reality, and the purpose of life -- many people would like to know.]

Better to talk about certain specific cognitive or mental skills and aptitudes. 

you are missing the point. vocational school IS pulling yourself from the bootstraps. But Petersons point is, that for people with iq lower than 83, then number of jobs they can competently do is small, and getting smaller and smaller in the 1st world. Not only that, but they are simply much more difficult to train and cant handle certain job place complexities which put them at a heavy disadvantage.

"Peterson makes a very interesting point that both the right and the left ignore the terrifying implications of iq in a global workplace that becomes more and more complex to remain competitive. "

This is a perfect example of the dangers of taking I.Q. scores too seriously. If you want to use I.Q. testing as a very rough measure of someone's potential - fine. If you start taking them as absolutely accurate measures of people's intelligence then you have entered the realm of pseudo science as the evidence does not support I.Q. tests as having that degree of accuracy. If you then start making policy and discriminating against people on that basis, then you've went to a whole new level of crazy.

I was making a different point. 

Trump [pls don't starting pegging me, one way or the other, or get overly quick to do so] is bringing back a lot of blue collar jobs. They are not disappearing in the way Peterson suggests. 

Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps can work just fine, if it's done in an ability-appropriate way. 

as Peterson states, the military had every motivation to lower the minimium IQ required to successful recruit (and why woudnt it?)  but their research concluded that those below 83 where more a burden to the military then anything. Its a nasty truth but a significant one. If someone motivated to lower the bar coudnt do it at their expense of the potential results, then there is good reason to take that seriously.

once, again . MARGIN OF ERROR. that's already accounted for.

So the military are prone to believe in pseudo science. No surprise there. They also think lie detector tests work.

no, im pretty sure this  conversation is going nowhere.

There is a lot of room (plenty -- more than enough) for lower-IQ people to find or create jobs, even alongside the progression of automation, robotics, and IT. 

(If you want a list of more specific possibilities there, I can provide one.)

Depends on where one takes it. 

A lot of people in the American military are idiots and will believe anything. The fact that they think I.Q. tests are useful doesn't say anything for them. Probably the opposite.

If someone had an extremely good memory, and the ability to follow a good set of rules and algorithms, why couldn't that person do very well in chess? Aren't there computer programs that basically do the same, even without being able to do well on IQ tests? 

Is intelligence even necessary? It can all be done mechanistically. 

Two alternatives in chess -- an intelligence approach and a mechanistic approach. 

Fischer complained about this, and thought chess had taken a turn for the worse, away from creativity and toward the mechanistic.

 Race realists?

This pondisoulenso clown is making me sick.  Am I the only one?

Aren't a lot of IQ test questions similar to chess problems?  In the sense that your brain has to recognize something then draw the correct conclusion?  

So someone decided these questions measure general intelligence.  Couldn't someone decide that chess problems measure general intelligence?  

An IQ test could be developed containing only chess problems.  Then Grand masters would have the highest IQs.

Exactly.