── [RANT] People who take IQ seriously are the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet ──
       /general/ thread 1778320168   posts: 12
       
   DIR ← back to /general/
   DIR [reply to this thread]
       
       >> 1  Anonymous  2026-05-09 09:49 ID:3o1BM3Og
         I'm not even talking about the ones who brag about their IQ scores (often taken from crappy online test), those are self-evidently pathetic. I'm talking about the people who go online to spout bullshit like "IQ thresholds for voting rights" or "XYZ has gone to SHIT because LOW IQ N*****S ruined it". That world view is so simplistic that, ironically, it's a mark of actual stupidity. Believing that something as complex and ill-defined as intelligence can be boiled down to a single number on a 1-axis scale is the mark of a childlike mind. Just imagine applying this to any other human metric, like having a "STR score" for "physical strength", or a "mechanist quota" for "being good at interfacing with vehicles".
         
         When you try arguing with these people and point this out, they usually backpedal and pretend their opinions are actually nuanced, giving you some wishy-washy bullshit about "well, errm, no, but, you see, in general, it's indicative of general trends" yadda yadda yadda. Then two days later they make a post suggesting anyone with less than 110 IQ should not be allowed to rate movies on IMDb.
         
         And before anyone thinks I'm only saying this out of some resentment, I'll have you know I had a real psychometric IQ test done during my autism diagnosis, and I scored 2 standard derivations above mean, which is roughly 130 in the magical number scale.
       
       >> 2  Mr. 2 GET Likes To 2 GET  2026-05-09 10:31 ID:XrwPqVwi
         Are the people who call for intelligence tests to earn the right to vote actually calling for “IQ tests” in particular? Because I agree that “IQ” isn't a very useful metric but it's also clear that stupid people are easily influenced to vote badly. Maybe Socrates was right, people should only be able to vote if they can prove they have thought about it rationally and critically - that doesn't mean voting is left to a narrow few, it would be based on understanding of the election and issues, not “IQ”, so everyone would have the opportunity to get involved.
       
       >> 3  Anonymous  2026-05-09 12:28 ID:bbw4vTJI
         >>2
         They're probably not calling for IQ tests specifically so much as a return to the "good old days" when "those people" were deliberately given impossible tests to keep them from voting while the "approved" ones got easy ones.
       
       >> 4  Anonymous  2026-05-09 15:04 ID:Heaven
         >>2 Who would design those "intelligence tests"?
       
       >> 5  Anonymous  2026-05-09 15:07 ID:LFYPFtnq
         >>1
         
         > >Just imagine applying this to any other human metric, like having a "STR score" for "physical strength", or a "mechanist quota" for "being good at interfacing with vehicles".There's a lot of dumb people who believe worthless metrics like this should exist. A lot of this stuff reflects our data driven culture, where everything has to be reduced to a score so it can be easily processed by machines which supposedly lead to better outcomes because humans don't make decisions anymore. For my last job interview I had to do a psychometric test to determine my personality type because company suits had decided only certain Myers Briggs type indicators are compatible for certain roles. Naturally I didn't get it, despite being qualified. Honestly seems label-mania and the autistic need to taxonomize everything keeps getting dumber and dumber and if you question it, certain people look at you like you just raped a child.
       
       >> 6  Anonymous  2026-05-10 07:15 ID:WvAqXUrj
         But how else would my Glasses of IQ+3 and Underpants of Mechanism+5 work?
       
       >> 7  Anonymous  2026-05-10 12:41 ID:XrwPqVwi
         >>4 I don't know, I was referring to whatever >>1 was talking about. I don't know if “intelligence test” is the best description, I'm thinking it would be focused on the actual candidates/parties and their policies, who they are and what they'll do if they get in power, stuff that's important for the voter to understand so they can make an informed choice. Brexit is a good recent example of uninformed people voting for bad reasons; they were hoodwinked or voted out of spite, and many regretted it afterwards because of how worse the country got. Demagogues rely on the ignorance of the masses to take power
       
       >> 9  Anonymous  2026-05-12 11:06 ID:+Okqg4vW
         >>5 I hate these things with a passion. People treat them as directives to live by rather than categories for classifying an incredibly broad spectrum of intelligent beings. Astrology for Narcissists.
         
         I get that humans like to categorise things- we’ve evolved based on our specialised pattern-recognition skills, but there’s no need to deliberately force rigid metrics on the beautiful infinity of uniqueness in our society.
         
         When I voice complaints it’s always "you're a INFP and they don't like being labelled"
       
       >> 10  Anonymous  2026-05-17 01:40 ID:Heaven
         >>9
gopher.someodd.zip:70 /applets/4_ch.lhs/general/1778320168:44: line too long