Many people of *any* "identity" dimensions are incompetent (about many things modern life demands).
The dirty little (political) secret is that large portions of the public don't actually grasp the things Jenn cites, which is how they fall into the (Democratic Party's) intergenerational abuse scheme. Barring serious educational and/or mas…
Many people of *any* "identity" dimensions are incompetent (about many things modern life demands).
The dirty little (political) secret is that large portions of the public don't actually grasp the things Jenn cites, which is how they fall into the (Democratic Party's) intergenerational abuse scheme. Barring serious educational and/or mass media reform -- you know, where thought leaders/teach actually lead/teach because they actually care about peoples' welfare -- they also likely never *will* understand. (Just to position where I'm coming from here, I readily admit I'm genuinely below-average stupid and/or ignorant about plenty of things, and acknowledging hard limits to both is no vice. Nor does admitting this make me, or defines me as, "lazy".)
This is because the underlying modern cultural problem here is the high association of intelligence/knowledge with virtue -- as if we are fully the authors of our minds, and thus each choose how mentally competent we can be, so, therefore, must be held fully accountable for all performance. Admitting otherwise is, in many contexts, completely taboo. That's how an assertion of low intelligence / low knowledge is now the supreme insult, in a way one would rarely or never take, say, poor muscular strength as an personal insult. This, despite the fact that all sorts of things, of causes both from nature and nurture, interfere with performance and achievement to impose real ceilings, high and low, on everyone.
I'm talking specifically about the low IQ, nothing to do with identity. No, low IQ people generally struggle with anything cognitive, whereas people very smart in one sphere are more likely to be at least competent in others, which is why a PhD will, all els being equal, be better at working in a McDonald's kitchen than someone with an IQ of 100 who in turn out ranks the 85 (albeit nowhere near enough to make it logical to hire anyone but the latter two.)
No idea what else you're talking about and not interested in it either.
"... poor and or people of color are too incompetent ..." -> "Many of them are. "
That's where I saw identity. (That there exists any POC struggling with low intelligence is an utter taboo to assert, as you know). No problem for me, but also I didn't want to see you tarred with "racism".
"low IQ people generally struggle with anything cognitive"
Agreed. And until we reverse the status implications, life will continue too often for too many of them to be unbearable. This is the most important *ism of our age.
Obviously you’ve never had to pack up a house with a PhD. SOOOO much dithering, and they have to examine every book before putting it in a fucking box.
There are many kinds of intelligence. If you have a PhD, you are probably a narrow/deep thinker. Probably not a doer. I do not think a PhD would necessarily outperform an organized doer in a McDonald’s kitchen.
Complete category error. They're not dithering because they can't figure out that books go in boxes. They're dithering because they're interested in the books, and it's their books. If you set a PhD and someone with mild cognitive impairment up with boxes, furniture, books, whatever, and told them to array the items in such a way that they'd be easily packed, found, stored, loaded, unloaded etc, we know who would (all else being equal) perform better. We know it for fast food too and the studies bear it out, and above all else we know from the one body in American life where de facto IQ ranking and testing are still legal for now: the army.
You are being disingenuous. Of course they know books belong in boxes but they are useless at quickly packing books because they need to open and examine each book because books are fascinating. Pro tip: if you are moving have your book nerd friends pack up the kitchen and the linens.
No, you're being disingenuous. You don't actually think a PhD is incapable of packing boxes without looking at the books if that's the task they're allotted with. What actually happened is a single PhD was interested in the books on front of them, started reading them, and you let it happen and chose to take it out on me long after the fact. If the task allotted the PhD was "do the packing to Jenn's liking in the time she specifies" then intelligence would be a boon and not a curse.
Yup. At someone else’s house I could pack up and clean no problem, but if I try to do anything productive at my house I end up rereading an old book or going through old photo albums instead lol
Many people of *any* "identity" dimensions are incompetent (about many things modern life demands).
The dirty little (political) secret is that large portions of the public don't actually grasp the things Jenn cites, which is how they fall into the (Democratic Party's) intergenerational abuse scheme. Barring serious educational and/or mass media reform -- you know, where thought leaders/teach actually lead/teach because they actually care about peoples' welfare -- they also likely never *will* understand. (Just to position where I'm coming from here, I readily admit I'm genuinely below-average stupid and/or ignorant about plenty of things, and acknowledging hard limits to both is no vice. Nor does admitting this make me, or defines me as, "lazy".)
This is because the underlying modern cultural problem here is the high association of intelligence/knowledge with virtue -- as if we are fully the authors of our minds, and thus each choose how mentally competent we can be, so, therefore, must be held fully accountable for all performance. Admitting otherwise is, in many contexts, completely taboo. That's how an assertion of low intelligence / low knowledge is now the supreme insult, in a way one would rarely or never take, say, poor muscular strength as an personal insult. This, despite the fact that all sorts of things, of causes both from nature and nurture, interfere with performance and achievement to impose real ceilings, high and low, on everyone.
I'm talking specifically about the low IQ, nothing to do with identity. No, low IQ people generally struggle with anything cognitive, whereas people very smart in one sphere are more likely to be at least competent in others, which is why a PhD will, all els being equal, be better at working in a McDonald's kitchen than someone with an IQ of 100 who in turn out ranks the 85 (albeit nowhere near enough to make it logical to hire anyone but the latter two.)
No idea what else you're talking about and not interested in it either.
"... poor and or people of color are too incompetent ..." -> "Many of them are. "
That's where I saw identity. (That there exists any POC struggling with low intelligence is an utter taboo to assert, as you know). No problem for me, but also I didn't want to see you tarred with "racism".
"low IQ people generally struggle with anything cognitive"
Agreed. And until we reverse the status implications, life will continue too often for too many of them to be unbearable. This is the most important *ism of our age.
It’s one thing for status and another thing to just not be shat on
Obviously you’ve never had to pack up a house with a PhD. SOOOO much dithering, and they have to examine every book before putting it in a fucking box.
There are many kinds of intelligence. If you have a PhD, you are probably a narrow/deep thinker. Probably not a doer. I do not think a PhD would necessarily outperform an organized doer in a McDonald’s kitchen.
Complete category error. They're not dithering because they can't figure out that books go in boxes. They're dithering because they're interested in the books, and it's their books. If you set a PhD and someone with mild cognitive impairment up with boxes, furniture, books, whatever, and told them to array the items in such a way that they'd be easily packed, found, stored, loaded, unloaded etc, we know who would (all else being equal) perform better. We know it for fast food too and the studies bear it out, and above all else we know from the one body in American life where de facto IQ ranking and testing are still legal for now: the army.
You are being disingenuous. Of course they know books belong in boxes but they are useless at quickly packing books because they need to open and examine each book because books are fascinating. Pro tip: if you are moving have your book nerd friends pack up the kitchen and the linens.
No, you're being disingenuous. You don't actually think a PhD is incapable of packing boxes without looking at the books if that's the task they're allotted with. What actually happened is a single PhD was interested in the books on front of them, started reading them, and you let it happen and chose to take it out on me long after the fact. If the task allotted the PhD was "do the packing to Jenn's liking in the time she specifies" then intelligence would be a boon and not a curse.
Yup. At someone else’s house I could pack up and clean no problem, but if I try to do anything productive at my house I end up rereading an old book or going through old photo albums instead lol