= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (526)
I'm sure you could find one specific example in the world of someone prejudiced against someone because of high IQ, but I'd say that in general, there isn't such prejudice. There may be prejudice against intelligence, but that's not the same thing, and even that only exists in a few limited situations.
I don't see the relevance. A claim of superiority (especially an unwarranted one) isn't the same thing as actual superiority.
I'm not clear what the difference here is between being prejudiced against someone because of IQ, and because of intelligence; since IQ is a pretty good measure of intelligence, it'd be pretty hard to be prejudiced against one and not the other...
In any case, there do seem to be historically a lot of cases of anti-intellectualism (I like the Khmer Rouge targeting people with glasses), and traditional societies do favor high Openness a lot less than modern societies (see Miller).
That subclause is doing an awful lot of work in your argument.
I'd say that IQ measures part of what most people consider intelligence, but isn't the same as it, and even as a measure of that it isn't an exact measure.
Well, it's a good thing we've got a century or so of work on the positive manifold/g. I wouldn't want to make anything but one of the best established tests do so much work in my argument!
It does not measure all cognitive traits, no, and as a measure it has a pretty precisely known amount of unreliability in it.
Yet I fail to see how either of your sentences are a reply to my comment.