What about solar panels? In true slashdot tradition I have yet to RTFA, but the summary doesn't really say anything about the planned flooring within the greenhouse. I remember reading that direct, mid-day sunlight delivers roughly 1KW/square meter, so if they cover the floor of their greenhouse with typical 14-15% effective solar panels they'd get an extra 1,5GW of electricity produced at peak sun.
That kind of situation cannot last forever. Sooner or later companies will learn that this is loser behavior.
So I hope! I, and most IT guys I know, make less money than your average teacher, secretary or convenience store manager. Imagine if every teacher in the world went on strike for two weeks.. wohoo! Two weeks off from school!
Now imagine if every person in an IT-related job went on strike for two weeks. The world would end. No shit! People would likely loose electricity, gas and communication (phones, cell, internet). Hospitals are completely dependent on their IT-systems working. Trains, large boats and airfaire would stop dead.
No, I'm not saying every system would die within two weeks without maintenance, but enough of them would that it would create som real freaggin' huge problems! Not to mention the user's need to be led by the hand through the nigh unfathomable maze that is finding files you've saved, finding the right icon to click to launch the application you use every day, sending e-mail, etc.
I've always been opposed to outsourcing of any kind, since I am after all an IT person and as such realize that we are the most important people in the World and every big business should have a few of us around.
Jokes aside, from the perspective of someone who does everything from server maintenance, virtualization, software development and "IT chimp" stuff like helpdesk and replacing end-user equipment, I really do think it is in a company's best interest to keep a few competent IT guys around. The level of service we can provide as well as the knowledge we possess about our own systems cannot cheaply be equaled by an external company. Management doesn't really see this though, and they seem to be heading into the ever-recurring outsourcing-cycle that always ends in a proverbial slap across the face, huge monetary loss, malcontent employees and loads of work rehiring and training a competent IT-staff.
That being said, I have a friend who works for a company that sells remote IT services. His paycheck is roughly 150% of mine, his work more varied, his job satisfaction considerably higher and his company regularly puts together social events like parties, lazer-tag etc. With me having a huge amount of personal responsibility at work while making less money than a just-out-of-school kindergarten teacher, no say in where resources are spent (wasted on things like Altiris in an environment where we're running almost exclusively Citrix and thin clients), no money spent on building competance...
Let's just say I'm keeping my eyes open for a new job while reconsidering my views on outsourcing...
Flip the coin, man. In a world where everyone is tracked, there wouldn't be much room for murders and rapists. It would be absolutely trivial to tell who were with the victim when the crime happened and as such next-to-no crime would go unpunished. (Assuming a non-corrupt government and a decent law enforcement agency that got the resources they need)
Well.. yes. Not for a 2 month drive-across-the-continent-type vacation, but believe it or not we don't drive around in cars like the one Mr. Bean uses. Besides, as I posted elsewhere on this article, fuel costs roughly €1,5 here in Norway (despite the fact that we are a major producer of oil products). Even so, the fact that you get your fuel almost for free (in comparison) doesn't in any way justify driving a huge monstrosity of an SUV/pickup-truck/whatever just because you might go to Disneyland or you might have to move some heavy shit.
I can't be arsed to do the math right now, but I'd bet that having a sensible car (that accelerates no worse, and probably drives and handles better than a huge SUV or something) offsets the cost of leasing something more roomy that one time per decade you actually go road tripping with your family of five.
According to Wikipedia, Diesel has the highest energy density of all the more popular fuels and as anyone who has ever driven a new diesel will know, torque, noise, etc. are non-issues.
Would we even be having this silly discussion if not for those blasted average Americans? =P
People tend to buy for worst-case instead of average-case scenarios - just in case they ever take that holiday to Disneyland, they don't want to pack in to a compact. Europeans on the other hand take a train.
What on earth are you talking about? You can't just make retarded, unsupported statements like that! We Europeans are quite fond of our cars, and have no problem packing a family of four into a typical European/Asian family car for vacation. if you think you need to drive a Hummer or a 2-ton pickup truck to get where you're going, then perhaps you should learn to pack your stuff with some common sense (and perhaps put your all-American family on a diet).
Yes, that diet comment assumed a very clique image of Americans. I allowed myself this small freedom, as you seem to have no problem making stupid statements and assumptions about us.
Thanks for the reply! I hope you don't mind my digging a bit more!
This inability to filter out information.. is this the same thing that lets some ("idiot") savants fly over a large city once, then draw the city in perfect detail? Or people like Beethoven who could hear an entire symphony and recall it all in detail?
I've often found myself wishing I could turn adjust my "filters" a bit at will, because it feels like a lot of info simply never reaches the "me" part of my brain. Of course, sensory overload doesn't sound like much fun either.
So.. what's the conclusion? We are somewhere in between "normal" and "rain man"? We have root access to the tools (like empathy) that normal people take for granted and autistic people lack? ^^
Symptoms
* Continued infantile behavior
* Decreased learning ability
* Failure to meet intellectual developmental markers
* Inability to meet educational demands at school
* Lack of curiosity
Woah.. WOAH! Thanks for that info. I know people who consider themselves "above average" in the intelligence department but who are, per this definition, actually mentally retarded. I've suspected as much for a long time, but to see that they actually meet at least 3 of the points (and to some degree the first point).. aah, did someone say narcissism? ^^
So.. in other words, you're a man? =P On a more serious note.. when you truly focus on a single subject, are you better at it than us "normies"?
On the topic of the Cocktail Party Effect, I seem to have problems with this as well. Just like I can't type while I speak or pay attention to something unrelated being said to me, I haven't the faintest chance of paying attention to more than one conversation at once. I'm a guy with pretty loud opinions and I like a good argument though, so I normally end up immersed in a single conversation while completely ignoring the rest of the party. =P
How do you experience this? You say you can't focus on doing more than one task, does this not apply to focusing on incoming info around you? Sorry if this is rude-like, just intrigued by the chance to speak with someone who potentially experiences the world differently from myself. =)
Also, the expected level of continous, non-stop productivity per person has risen to whole new levels compared to just a decade ago.
It's not that I disagree with your post in general, but I welcome you to visit our planet to get a perspective on how things are here. The further back in time we look, the harder people had to work. My grandfather worked 12 hour days, 6 days a week chopping wood without the aid of power tools, and had to walk roughly 1-2 hour to and from work, depending on where they were working at any given time. My grandparents did the best they could, both because took pride in their work and because they had a family to provide for and working was the only option.
My father has never shied away from work either, though he has always been protected and limited to 37,5 hours a week plus overtime. Add in regulated working conditions, sick days, sick leave and knowledge that he'd still get enough to survive should he lose his job, and the picture is even clearer: compared to my grandparents, he hardly even worked.
Then, there is me. Posting on slashdot during work hours, need I say more?
It is simply a deliberate gamble with a innocent persons life when one makes babies at 45. There are absolutely *no* excuses, in my opinion.
I agree wholeheartedly. Tough handicap or not, I often find myself wondering what the world looks like to the stereotypical (though rare) Hollywood Rain Man. I have an IQ of about 142, and seeing certain friends of mine struggle to understand things that come completely intuitively to me, like programming a tv without a manual (or even with one!), grasping the concepts of levers and gearing things up/down, logic puzzles, etc. I wonder how a person significantly more intelligent than me views the world we live in.
It would seem I have missed out on some vital information here. What does having an old mother have to do with expected lifespan? I mean, apart from the very high chances that something goes wrong when women who could be grandmothers spawn offspring of their own..
This is quite off topic, but I'll say it just the same. I do not have autism, Asperger's, nor any other "mental disability" (man, how wrong it feels to call a slight difference in wiring a "disability"). I function well in social situations, I understand normal emotions and possess well above average (for a male) empathy which allows me to read other people's emotional states quite easily and accurately.
Driven by logic over emotion? Hell yes. Of course I won't kill someone because it seems logical (though that might just be because preservation of another thinking mind is very logical). Of course I need a hug from time to time. The choices I make and the way I live my life is based, as much as I can, on logic and cold reason. Perhaps as a side-effect of this, as well as other engraving factors in my childhood and teens, I rarely feel much. No waves of joy, bursts of anger, overwhelming sadness, hopeless crushes or crushing jealousy. Logically, I see no reason to let emotion get in the way of having a civil argument. I see no reason why I should let an entire day go sour do the detriment of myself and those around me because I "feel like I'm having a shitty day", when those thoughts and feelings can be overridden by reason. I'm no monster though, so although I don't feel much I don't do things to others that I know will hurt them, and I like making those I care about happy. What logical reason would I have to do something to another person that I wouldn't like if they did to me?
Yeah, completely anecdotal and useless, but here's at least one person who could easily pass as either stone-cold sociopath or socially active, outgoing, compassionate and caring should the need arise. Generally I like the compassionate, caring and social me though, so when around people, that is the "software profile" I use. =P
The problem is you can get type-cast with people thinking " lets give this guy nothing but the boring repetitive stuff because he likes it and doesn't want new stuff"
So you're saying your employer views you exactly the same as every other IT guy out there is viewed by their employer..? =P
On a site such as/. where it is assumed that the level of intelligent discussion is higher than the rest of the 'net, it's frustrating to see people believing they have countered an argument or disproven a rule because they point out and exception. Yes, I am generalizing. Yes, I am talking about westerners.
Sure, you will find the situation is different in other parts of the world. Yeah, I might find some woman with enough money to support me who'd rather I take care of house and kids than waste my time making (comparatively) very little money. I might become some older, unfathomably rich woman's boy-toy. The first fact is irrelevant to my statements, and both the latter possibilities would make people frown and question my manhood, and neither are very likely to happen.
On the other hand, we see women living off their man's income as nothing out of the ordinary. It's just a choice she made, plain and simple. Chances are though, that even in that situation the man is in no way guaranteed to come home to dinner and a clean house, because that would be horrible, horrible male chauvinism!
Oh, and off topic: I don't think Pablo Picasso ever had the privilege of working with computers. I do, and computers (at least when coupled with average users) tend to give me far more problems and hard questions than they do answers. =P
You seem to be arguing just for the sake of argument. Intelligence isn't a part of physics but again you are making a rather half-assed argument.
IQ is a measure of certain properties of a brain (or rather, a mind), which is a very complex system. Mass, volume and charge are measurements in a different system. That one system has more easily defined rules and easily measured properties doesn't in any way invalidate our way of measuring properties of another, completely different system. If that is your best argument.. well, I can't help you.
You can make whatever outrageous claims you want. It won't change the fact that if you rate someone's ability to solve crosswords you get a score representing.. *drumroll* that person's ability to solve crosswords! *GASP!* The same thing goes for an IQ test, which rates your ability to solve logical, spacial and mathematical problems, memorize and categorize, etc. to give you a score showing how good you are at solving those tasks.
Excuse me.. who are you to tell me what "moron" means when you don't even know what "sheeple" are? =P Sheeple = sheep people. People who can't be arsed to think for themselves, who readily gobble up any random rumor and hearsay as unequivocal fact. People who aren't strictly speaking stupid, as in lacking mental capacity to learn, comprehend and understand, but for some reason I utterly fail to understand choose to remain ignorant.
I'm no English literature professor so I might very well be wrong, but I don't think "Moron" has a very strict definition? If you do something stupid and foolish, something you should have been able to see would not end well, you are a moron. In this specific case, I had a couple of people I know in mind. People who in all seriousness think the world is coming to an end in 2012, exactly like the movie 2012, because of global warming. They are morons.
Of course intelligence is a made up concept. Exactly like mass, volume, charge, etc. in that they exist but the terms are simply things we have invented to classify information around us. You cannot state that a test designed to rate a persons ability to solve a certain type of task is useless at rating people's ability to, well.. solve that certain type of task! I don't mean to be rude but if you fail to see the logical fallacy of that argument, Sir, I think you might be at the lower end of the Bell curve.
An IQ test is made to evaluate a person's mental ability within a certain set of categories, like logic, language, spatial awareness, math, memory, etc. As such, a high IQ equates to ability within those areas, and opposite a low IQ usually means your general understanding of things logical, mathematical, etc. is low.
Why do we even argue about this? It's perfectly logical.
God Sir, I applaud your insightful post even as I type to tell you how much I appreciate it (before it gets modded into oblivion as flamebait)!
Women keep screaming and shouting about how Hollywood and pop culture in general creates an unhealthy image of what a woman should be (all driven by big, evil dirtbag men of course). What about the fact that this very same culture continues to support the view that men need to support their women and families, pay for dates, open doors and drive decent cars? As a man, I will never have the choice to be a stay-at-home dad. Assuming I make enough money though, it wouldn't be socially acceptable for me to refuse my future wife the choice of quitting her job to be a full time mom. If I don't make money and don't have a car, I am a bum and have roughly nill chance of getting, much less keeping a steady girlfriend. If a woman doesn't make any money though, it isn't just acceptable for her to be with a man who supports her, it would be considered perfectly normal.
Hypocrisy much? Women didn't have much choice 50++ years ago; find a good man, raise and care for your family. Neither did men; get the best job you can and work your ass off to support your wife and family. What has changed for the better? Well, women can choose to work, or to stay at home. Women can do whatever the hell they like (even beating on or otherwise abusing their man) and no one will raise an eyebrow. Men, on the other hand, are still stuck with 1. Get an education. 2. Work until retirement or death to provide for your family.
Or to paraphrase George Carlin: "Take a minute to think about how stupid the average person is.. now realize that half the worlds population is even dumber!"
IQ tests might not be perfect, but a scale that rates morons at the bottom, sheeple in the middle and Steven Hawking at the high end isn't "fundamentally flawed". So called "emotional intelligence" aside.. You can argue until your face turns blue, but someone with a low IQ will be noticeably dumb while someone with a high IQ will most likely be noticeably smart, at least in the context of understanding how logical things work, spatial awareness, ability to learn and comprehend, and apply said learned information to novel problems.
Until you can prove that IQ tests show no (or a very weak) correlation between IQ score and the properties mentioned above (i.e. the things they are made to quantify) you have no argument and by virtue of logic have no place pushing your rubbish misconceptions on others. (sorry if that sounded a bit harsh)
Slashdot Mirror
What about solar panels? In true slashdot tradition I have yet to RTFA, but the summary doesn't really say anything about the planned flooring within the greenhouse. I remember reading that direct, mid-day sunlight delivers roughly 1KW/square meter, so if they cover the floor of their greenhouse with typical 14-15% effective solar panels they'd get an extra 1,5GW of electricity produced at peak sun.
Wait.. 1,5GW? That can't be right?
That kind of situation cannot last forever. Sooner or later companies will learn that this is loser behavior.
So I hope! I, and most IT guys I know, make less money than your average teacher, secretary or convenience store manager. Imagine if every teacher in the world went on strike for two weeks.. wohoo! Two weeks off from school!
Now imagine if every person in an IT-related job went on strike for two weeks. The world would end. No shit! People would likely loose electricity, gas and communication (phones, cell, internet). Hospitals are completely dependent on their IT-systems working. Trains, large boats and airfaire would stop dead.
No, I'm not saying every system would die within two weeks without maintenance, but enough of them would that it would create som real freaggin' huge problems! Not to mention the user's need to be led by the hand through the nigh unfathomable maze that is finding files you've saved, finding the right icon to click to launch the application you use every day, sending e-mail, etc.
I've always been opposed to outsourcing of any kind, since I am after all an IT person and as such realize that we are the most important people in the World and every big business should have a few of us around.
Jokes aside, from the perspective of someone who does everything from server maintenance, virtualization, software development and "IT chimp" stuff like helpdesk and replacing end-user equipment, I really do think it is in a company's best interest to keep a few competent IT guys around. The level of service we can provide as well as the knowledge we possess about our own systems cannot cheaply be equaled by an external company. Management doesn't really see this though, and they seem to be heading into the ever-recurring outsourcing-cycle that always ends in a proverbial slap across the face, huge monetary loss, malcontent employees and loads of work rehiring and training a competent IT-staff.
That being said, I have a friend who works for a company that sells remote IT services. His paycheck is roughly 150% of mine, his work more varied, his job satisfaction considerably higher and his company regularly puts together social events like parties, lazer-tag etc. With me having a huge amount of personal responsibility at work while making less money than a just-out-of-school kindergarten teacher, no say in where resources are spent (wasted on things like Altiris in an environment where we're running almost exclusively Citrix and thin clients), no money spent on building competance...
Let's just say I'm keeping my eyes open for a new job while reconsidering my views on outsourcing...
Well, their conscience and the fear of reprisal and punishment.
Flip the coin, man. In a world where everyone is tracked, there wouldn't be much room for murders and rapists. It would be absolutely trivial to tell who were with the victim when the crime happened and as such next-to-no crime would go unpunished. (Assuming a non-corrupt government and a decent law enforcement agency that got the resources they need)
Well.. yes. Not for a 2 month drive-across-the-continent-type vacation, but believe it or not we don't drive around in cars like the one Mr. Bean uses. Besides, as I posted elsewhere on this article, fuel costs roughly €1,5 here in Norway (despite the fact that we are a major producer of oil products). Even so, the fact that you get your fuel almost for free (in comparison) doesn't in any way justify driving a huge monstrosity of an SUV/pickup-truck/whatever just because you might go to Disneyland or you might have to move some heavy shit.
I can't be arsed to do the math right now, but I'd bet that having a sensible car (that accelerates no worse, and probably drives and handles better than a huge SUV or something) offsets the cost of leasing something more roomy that one time per decade you actually go road tripping with your family of five.
According to Wikipedia, Diesel has the highest energy density of all the more popular fuels and as anyone who has ever driven a new diesel will know, torque, noise, etc. are non-issues.
Would we even be having this silly discussion if not for those blasted average Americans? =P
Really? Here in Norway, where a significant part of the worlds oil products are produced, fuel costs roughly €1.53862 per liter.
People tend to buy for worst-case instead of average-case scenarios - just in case they ever take that holiday to Disneyland, they don't want to pack in to a compact. Europeans on the other hand take a train.
What on earth are you talking about? You can't just make retarded, unsupported statements like that! We Europeans are quite fond of our cars, and have no problem packing a family of four into a typical European/Asian family car for vacation. if you think you need to drive a Hummer or a 2-ton pickup truck to get where you're going, then perhaps you should learn to pack your stuff with some common sense (and perhaps put your all-American family on a diet).
Yes, that diet comment assumed a very clique image of Americans. I allowed myself this small freedom, as you seem to have no problem making stupid statements and assumptions about us.
Thanks for the reply! I hope you don't mind my digging a bit more!
This inability to filter out information.. is this the same thing that lets some ("idiot") savants fly over a large city once, then draw the city in perfect detail? Or people like Beethoven who could hear an entire symphony and recall it all in detail?
I've often found myself wishing I could turn adjust my "filters" a bit at will, because it feels like a lot of info simply never reaches the "me" part of my brain. Of course, sensory overload doesn't sound like much fun either.
So.. what's the conclusion? We are somewhere in between "normal" and "rain man"? We have root access to the tools (like empathy) that normal people take for granted and autistic people lack? ^^
Symptoms * Continued infantile behavior * Decreased learning ability * Failure to meet intellectual developmental markers * Inability to meet educational demands at school * Lack of curiosity
Woah.. WOAH! Thanks for that info. I know people who consider themselves "above average" in the intelligence department but who are, per this definition, actually mentally retarded. I've suspected as much for a long time, but to see that they actually meet at least 3 of the points (and to some degree the first point).. aah, did someone say narcissism? ^^
So.. in other words, you're a man? =P On a more serious note.. when you truly focus on a single subject, are you better at it than us "normies"?
On the topic of the Cocktail Party Effect, I seem to have problems with this as well. Just like I can't type while I speak or pay attention to something unrelated being said to me, I haven't the faintest chance of paying attention to more than one conversation at once. I'm a guy with pretty loud opinions and I like a good argument though, so I normally end up immersed in a single conversation while completely ignoring the rest of the party. =P
How do you experience this? You say you can't focus on doing more than one task, does this not apply to focusing on incoming info around you? Sorry if this is rude-like, just intrigued by the chance to speak with someone who potentially experiences the world differently from myself. =)
Also, the expected level of continous, non-stop productivity per person has risen to whole new levels compared to just a decade ago.
It's not that I disagree with your post in general, but I welcome you to visit our planet to get a perspective on how things are here. The further back in time we look, the harder people had to work. My grandfather worked 12 hour days, 6 days a week chopping wood without the aid of power tools, and had to walk roughly 1-2 hour to and from work, depending on where they were working at any given time. My grandparents did the best they could, both because took pride in their work and because they had a family to provide for and working was the only option.
My father has never shied away from work either, though he has always been protected and limited to 37,5 hours a week plus overtime. Add in regulated working conditions, sick days, sick leave and knowledge that he'd still get enough to survive should he lose his job, and the picture is even clearer: compared to my grandparents, he hardly even worked.
Then, there is me. Posting on slashdot during work hours, need I say more?
It is simply a deliberate gamble with a innocent persons life when one makes babies at 45. There are absolutely *no* excuses, in my opinion.
I agree wholeheartedly. Tough handicap or not, I often find myself wondering what the world looks like to the stereotypical (though rare) Hollywood Rain Man. I have an IQ of about 142, and seeing certain friends of mine struggle to understand things that come completely intuitively to me, like programming a tv without a manual (or even with one!), grasping the concepts of levers and gearing things up/down, logic puzzles, etc. I wonder how a person significantly more intelligent than me views the world we live in.
It would seem I have missed out on some vital information here. What does having an old mother have to do with expected lifespan? I mean, apart from the very high chances that something goes wrong when women who could be grandmothers spawn offspring of their own..
This is quite off topic, but I'll say it just the same. I do not have autism, Asperger's, nor any other "mental disability" (man, how wrong it feels to call a slight difference in wiring a "disability"). I function well in social situations, I understand normal emotions and possess well above average (for a male) empathy which allows me to read other people's emotional states quite easily and accurately.
Driven by logic over emotion? Hell yes. Of course I won't kill someone because it seems logical (though that might just be because preservation of another thinking mind is very logical). Of course I need a hug from time to time. The choices I make and the way I live my life is based, as much as I can, on logic and cold reason. Perhaps as a side-effect of this, as well as other engraving factors in my childhood and teens, I rarely feel much. No waves of joy, bursts of anger, overwhelming sadness, hopeless crushes or crushing jealousy. Logically, I see no reason to let emotion get in the way of having a civil argument. I see no reason why I should let an entire day go sour do the detriment of myself and those around me because I "feel like I'm having a shitty day", when those thoughts and feelings can be overridden by reason. I'm no monster though, so although I don't feel much I don't do things to others that I know will hurt them, and I like making those I care about happy. What logical reason would I have to do something to another person that I wouldn't like if they did to me?
Yeah, completely anecdotal and useless, but here's at least one person who could easily pass as either stone-cold sociopath or socially active, outgoing, compassionate and caring should the need arise. Generally I like the compassionate, caring and social me though, so when around people, that is the "software profile" I use. =P
The problem is you can get type-cast with people thinking " lets give this guy nothing but the boring repetitive stuff because he likes it and doesn't want new stuff"
So you're saying your employer views you exactly the same as every other IT guy out there is viewed by their employer..? =P
On a site such as /. where it is assumed that the level of intelligent discussion is higher than the rest of the 'net, it's frustrating to see people believing they have countered an argument or disproven a rule because they point out and exception. Yes, I am generalizing. Yes, I am talking about westerners.
Sure, you will find the situation is different in other parts of the world. Yeah, I might find some woman with enough money to support me who'd rather I take care of house and kids than waste my time making (comparatively) very little money. I might become some older, unfathomably rich woman's boy-toy. The first fact is irrelevant to my statements, and both the latter possibilities would make people frown and question my manhood, and neither are very likely to happen.
On the other hand, we see women living off their man's income as nothing out of the ordinary. It's just a choice she made, plain and simple. Chances are though, that even in that situation the man is in no way guaranteed to come home to dinner and a clean house, because that would be horrible, horrible male chauvinism!
Oh, and off topic: I don't think Pablo Picasso ever had the privilege of working with computers. I do, and computers (at least when coupled with average users) tend to give me far more problems and hard questions than they do answers. =P
You seem to be arguing just for the sake of argument. Intelligence isn't a part of physics but again you are making a rather half-assed argument.
IQ is a measure of certain properties of a brain (or rather, a mind), which is a very complex system. Mass, volume and charge are measurements in a different system. That one system has more easily defined rules and easily measured properties doesn't in any way invalidate our way of measuring properties of another, completely different system. If that is your best argument.. well, I can't help you.
You can make whatever outrageous claims you want. It won't change the fact that if you rate someone's ability to solve crosswords you get a score representing.. *drumroll* that person's ability to solve crosswords! *GASP!* The same thing goes for an IQ test, which rates your ability to solve logical, spacial and mathematical problems, memorize and categorize, etc. to give you a score showing how good you are at solving those tasks.
Have you not seen Demolition Man?! The owner of the eye was not killed, hand in your geek card right now!
Excuse me.. who are you to tell me what "moron" means when you don't even know what "sheeple" are? =P Sheeple = sheep people. People who can't be arsed to think for themselves, who readily gobble up any random rumor and hearsay as unequivocal fact. People who aren't strictly speaking stupid, as in lacking mental capacity to learn, comprehend and understand, but for some reason I utterly fail to understand choose to remain ignorant.
I'm no English literature professor so I might very well be wrong, but I don't think "Moron" has a very strict definition? If you do something stupid and foolish, something you should have been able to see would not end well, you are a moron. In this specific case, I had a couple of people I know in mind. People who in all seriousness think the world is coming to an end in 2012, exactly like the movie 2012, because of global warming. They are morons.
Of course intelligence is a made up concept. Exactly like mass, volume, charge, etc. in that they exist but the terms are simply things we have invented to classify information around us. You cannot state that a test designed to rate a persons ability to solve a certain type of task is useless at rating people's ability to, well.. solve that certain type of task! I don't mean to be rude but if you fail to see the logical fallacy of that argument, Sir, I think you might be at the lower end of the Bell curve.
An IQ test is made to evaluate a person's mental ability within a certain set of categories, like logic, language, spatial awareness, math, memory, etc. As such, a high IQ equates to ability within those areas, and opposite a low IQ usually means your general understanding of things logical, mathematical, etc. is low.
Why do we even argue about this? It's perfectly logical.
God Sir, I applaud your insightful post even as I type to tell you how much I appreciate it (before it gets modded into oblivion as flamebait)!
Women keep screaming and shouting about how Hollywood and pop culture in general creates an unhealthy image of what a woman should be (all driven by big, evil dirtbag men of course). What about the fact that this very same culture continues to support the view that men need to support their women and families, pay for dates, open doors and drive decent cars? As a man, I will never have the choice to be a stay-at-home dad. Assuming I make enough money though, it wouldn't be socially acceptable for me to refuse my future wife the choice of quitting her job to be a full time mom. If I don't make money and don't have a car, I am a bum and have roughly nill chance of getting, much less keeping a steady girlfriend. If a woman doesn't make any money though, it isn't just acceptable for her to be with a man who supports her, it would be considered perfectly normal.
Hypocrisy much? Women didn't have much choice 50++ years ago; find a good man, raise and care for your family. Neither did men; get the best job you can and work your ass off to support your wife and family. What has changed for the better? Well, women can choose to work, or to stay at home. Women can do whatever the hell they like (even beating on or otherwise abusing their man) and no one will raise an eyebrow. Men, on the other hand, are still stuck with 1. Get an education. 2. Work until retirement or death to provide for your family.
Goooo equality and equal rights!
Or to paraphrase George Carlin: "Take a minute to think about how stupid the average person is.. now realize that half the worlds population is even dumber!"
IQ tests might not be perfect, but a scale that rates morons at the bottom, sheeple in the middle and Steven Hawking at the high end isn't "fundamentally flawed". So called "emotional intelligence" aside.. You can argue until your face turns blue, but someone with a low IQ will be noticeably dumb while someone with a high IQ will most likely be noticeably smart, at least in the context of understanding how logical things work, spatial awareness, ability to learn and comprehend, and apply said learned information to novel problems.
Until you can prove that IQ tests show no (or a very weak) correlation between IQ score and the properties mentioned above (i.e. the things they are made to quantify) you have no argument and by virtue of logic have no place pushing your rubbish misconceptions on others. (sorry if that sounded a bit harsh)