[LINK] Identity theft virus infects 10,000 computers

[Craig Sanders]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:38:12AM +1000, Rick Welykochy wrote:
> --- Craig Sanders <cas at taz.net.au> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:37:23PM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
> 
> > > No, it's nt even slightly disturbing. It means that half the
> > > population is less intelligent than average; the other half is
> > > more intelligent than averae. That's what "average" means...
> >
> > what's seriously disturbing about it is that about half the
> > population is actually quite stupid.  THAT is what is scary. an IQ
> > of 100 isnt particularly bright, and 80 is classified as moron.
>
> The estimation of IQ is a highly subjective and society-specific
> quantification of intelligence.

no, actually it's not. there is some small culture-specific aspect to IQ
but reasoning ability is cross-cultural.

> The "IQ" we are talking about isn't actually culled from one specific
> IQ test.  It is culled from many. The tests are Western-oriented and
> they test things like verbal, numeric, visio-spatial and pattern
> matching ability, because the sociologists and psychologists who
> designed the tests think that those things are good indicators of
> itelligence. In our society.

that's because they are - they're all necessary for good reasoning, no
matter what culture you're from, no matter what your native language.

> It is a big leap of faith in these test to generalise the results to
> the entire planet. An aborigine living in the bush or someone raised
> in Burma would likely fair very poorly on these IQ tests. The same
> person raised in our spic 'n' span white western society would *very*
> likely fair much better.
>
> You say "80 is classed as a moron". 

that's because it is. a person with an IQ of 80 is severely retarded.

like it or not, some people are smarter than others - just as some are
faster or more agile than others. i know it's taboo, or at least highly
unfashionable, to mention that in this anti-intellectual mediocratist
society, but it's still the truth.

why is it OK to acknowledge that someone is a better athlete than other
people but shockingly wrong to acknowledge that someone is a lot smarter
than others?

> I think that is a trite and uninformed statement that shows no
> understanding of how human intelligence works and the many ways it can
> be estimated and also the many ways it is actually manifested in a
> particular environment or living circumstance. Your own intelligence
> when tested in the milieu of an Amazonian tribe or perhaps when trying
> to eek out a living in the Arctic would be sorely tested, and you
> yourself would be classified as a "moron" in those circumstances.

no, you are confusing knowledge with intelligence.


> Craig, you really do seem obsessed with "stupid people". You bring
> them up all the time.

i bring it up when someone, you in this instance, makes some stupid
comment along the lines of "the majority think it's good, so it must be
good" - when it's a demonstrable fact that whatever the majority wants
is likely to be a) completely broken, and b) planted in their heads by
advertising agencies, spin doctors, and PR flacks.

> It's as if you see stupid people everywhere ;) I

since they outnumber smart people by hundreds, if not thousands, to one
that is actually the case.



> there are a lot of intellectually lazy people in our society who

whether they're just lazy or actually incapable, they're still stupid.

> barely warrant the species name of "Homo Sapiens". So what? These
> people consume products (including shoddy software) and live amongst
> us. We work with them, we even put up with them in our families. If
> you can't handle that you may have to consider moving to the planet
> Cerebrum or something. Or else live with it like the rest of us
> "intelligent" people do.

of course i have to put up with them, it's not as if there's any choice.
but i don't have to like it, or think that this is the best of all
possible worlds.


craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)