IQ test

“people should have to take IQ tests before they vote” ok but what if instead we required privileged rich assholes to take a test to prove they have compassion for their fellow human beings or at least a tenuous grip on right vs. wrong

AN 11-year-old black child has joined Mensa after scoring higher than Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates and Albert Einstein in an IQ test. Ramarni Wilfred started showing signs of genius as a toddler, when his favourite book was an encyclopedia. He could read and write by the time he started reception at school and last year, at the age of 10 and still in primary school, wrote a philosophy paper on fairness that earned him a 2:1 and a mock Oxford graduation. Prof. Hawking, Microsoft founder Gates and Einstein all have 160 IQs. Ramarni scored 162, putting him in the top 1% in the UK. Children hold the future. Like if you respect intelligence  This really made me proud.

MENSA TEST

You have to work out what the letters mean. The first one is an example. According to MENSA, if you get 23 of these in one hour you’re a genius. Only 2 MENSA members achieved full marks.

  1. 24 H in a D          24 Hours in a Day
  2. 26 L of the A
  3. 7 D of the W
  4. 7 W of the W
  5. 12 S of the Z
  6. 66 B of the B
  7. 52 C in a P (W Js)
  8. 13 S in the U S F
  9. 18 H on a G C
  10. 39 B of the O T
  11. 5 T on a F
  12. 90 D in a R A
  13. 3 B M (S H T R)
  14. 32 is the T in D F at which W F
  15. 15 P in a R T
  16. 3 W on a T
  17. 100 C in a D
  18. 11 P in a F (S) T
  19. 12 M in a Y
  20. 13 = U F S
  21. 8 T on a O
  22. 29 D in F in a L Y
  23. 27 B in the N T
  24. 365 D in a Y
  25. 13 L in a B D
  26. 52 W in a Y
  27. 9 L of a C
  28. 60 M in a H
  29. 23 P of C in the H B
  30. 64 S on a C B
  31. 9 P in S A
  32. 6 B to an O in C
  33. 1000 Y in a M
  34. 15 M on a D M C
"Intelligence" is an ableist construct

So, last semester at uni we learned about intelligence and how it’s defined and measured in tests.

The most common test design focuses on four aspects seen as main parts of intelligence - perceptual speed, working memory (also falsely known as short term memory) capacity, perception bound logical thinking and simple linguistic understanding. If you score low on one of these aspects, it can greatly impact the IQ-score-result.

Perceptual speed mainly focuses on how fast your brain can work with information. Working memory focuses on how much information can be memorized over a short term (like e.g. a string consisting of seven numbers for a minute). Perception bound logical thinking focuses on the ability of an individual to recognize certain patterns and to apply them. And linguistic understanding mainly focuses on simple word-recognition and so on (e.g. answering questions like “which day comes after Tuesday?”).

Autistic people struggle with different parts of cognition and thus intelligence, while we tend to exceed in others. This can greatly mess with our IQ-Scores, depending on which part of intelligence is measured.

For example, I had to take a usual test once in which all four aspects were balanced. My personal weakness is the working memory span, even more when I’m supposed to memorize auditory information. However, I have a super high perceptual speed and I’m also really good at perception bound logical thinking like probably a lot of us autistic people.
Thus, my talents exceeded my shortcomings and I got a rather high score.
Recently, I took a test which focused more on working memory and I had a really damn low score.

What I want to say by this anecdote is that intelligence how psychology describes it is nothing but a theoretical concept. And that the “intelligence” a person has depends highly on how the test was made and which deficits a person has.
I met people that I would describe as highly intelligent, who, however, scored really low on an IQ-test because of their personal deficits.

This also further shows that the concept we have of intelligence is highly ableist in many aspects because those deficits don’t always have an influence as big as these tests suggest on actual cognitive ability.
And because those deficits are not taken into account when the tests are applied on disabled people. It’s like letting a person in a wheelchair race against people who practice running twice a week - it’s an unfair competition to begin with and the wheelchair user doesn’t have a fair chance to begin with. (I really hope this metaphor is not ableist, I just really don’t know what kind of different example I could use to explain this concept. If you feel offended by this, please feel free to let me know and maybe, if you have the time, give me advice on what else to use so I can edit this post.)

Thus, saying that autistic people often aren’t as “intelligent” is simply like stating “people with disabilities that affect their ability to walk can’t run as fast as people who aren’t disabled in that way”.

And furthermore, seeing the IQ result as the be-all and end-all of intelligence is a wrong conclusion to begin with because science has not an effing clue what intelligence actually is. (Our prof literally said “IQ-tests measure what they measure and there is no evidence whatsoever that what they measure is actual intelligence. They just measure what we decided we would define as aspects of intelligence without an explanation why we even see these aspects as factors that could play into whatever intelligence actually is.”)

Sign me TF up for:

Jillian “Dad Joke” Holtzmann

Jillian “Will the chair break if I sit like this? Ah well” Holtzmann

Jillian “I CAN DANCE MY PAIN AWAY” Holtzmann

but also

Jillian “I thought falling for a straight girl would be different THIS time…” Holtzmann

and

Jillian “crotch centric over here” Holtzmann

Jillian “I broke the IQ test” Holtzmann

Jillian “early 2000s meme trash” Holtzmann

Jillian “this doesn’t look safe. Too bad” Holtzmann

Jillian “soft butch, boxers on and flowers in her hair” Holtzmann

Jillian “I’m always a SLUT FOR SPACE” Holtzmann

Jillian. fucking. Holtzmann.

Dylann Roof's IQ

“Dr. Ballenger referenced Defendant’s quite striking results in his IQ tests. His overall intellectual function was a score of 125, which placed him in the 96th percentile. His verbal compression score was 141, which placed him in the top 99.7th percentile. However, his processing speed was 100, which placed him in the 50th percentile”

youtube
Intelligence is not a redeeming character trait.

I’m really unbelievably tired of (mostly male) characters being “redeemed” from their bad attitudes, bad manners, poor treatment of other characters, etc. by the big reveal of their supposed genius. 

Being intelligent (no matter how intelligent) doesn’t make a person worth more than anyone else. It doesn’t excuse any of those things. It isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card for bad behavior, and having other skills (no matter what they are) doesn’t justify never prioritizing learning how to not hurt the people around them.

It’s not an excuse. 

And I think this is especially important to bring up for (mostly white) male characters, because actual men outside of fiction are excused by society in the same way that narratives excuse them in fiction. As long as they’re perceived by society as being “more important” than other people (which they already are by default if they’re men, and even more so if they’re white, etc.), any inappropriate, harmful, or offensive behavior toward other people is excused. 

The excuses are always that it would be “hard” for someone who is SO INCREDIBLY GIFTED to… be kind? Show compassion? Consider the effects of their actions on others and act accordingly? 

It’s bullshit. 

Fundamentally the trope is ableist (by basing someone’s worth around their mental capacity), with undertones of classism and racism (in the same ways that IQ tests are classist and racist), and it perpetuates a narrative of male privilege and entitlement.

And by the way, if you were reading this post and thinking “Is this about [specific male character who does this]?” then the answer is yes.

also, as far as I can tell, lots of the criticism of the Bell Curve is of the form ‘well, if it were true that ‘intelligence’ exists and affects life outcomes and that different groups had different average intelligence, then segregation and slavery and white supremacy would be justified; therefore, Murray, by arguing that intelligence exists and affects life outcomes and so on, supports segregation and slavery and white supremacy’.

Which.

Fuck that.

It is intensely dangerous to equate ‘more intelligence’ with ‘having more moral worth’. It is intensely dangerous to equate ‘more intelligence’ with ‘deserving of more political power’. But Murray doesn’t do that! Murray’s critics do that - and worse, they don’t even argue it, they just take it absolutely for granted, they just swallow it up as a starting assumption, always present, never acknowledged - ‘if it were true that ‘intelligence’ existed and predicted life outcomes and varied between groups, then we would all have to become white supremacists’, they say, ‘therefore Murray, who argued for that thesis, is a white supremacist’. They never dream of challenging the assumption that intelligence, if it existed, would justify treating some people as more morally worthy than others; they resort to insisting that it couldn’t exist.

I disagree with Murray on a bunch of stuff - I think his reasoning on welfare lacks compassion and isn’t very clearly considered - but he does not scare me, because none of his theses, if they are true, change the fact that everyone who has experiences deserves good experiences, that you do not need to earn moral worth by earning lots of money, and that everyone matters no matter what population statistics turn up about them. 

My principles are not conditional on the results of IQ tests, and so I am not afraid of anyone doing IQ tests; yours probably aren’t either, if you actually think about it, and so while it’s reasonable to be afraid that other people’s principles are contingent on the results of IQ tests it is not reasonable to condemn the testing while you accept and even reinforce the contingentness. 

anonymous asked:

ok so can you be naturally smart or do you just study hard bc im rlly trying here but i feel like crap & i just wanna know if i have the potential to be smart

okay listen because i am so passionate about this: no one is inherently smart. no one. i don’t care what an IQ test tells you. everyone has the potential to be smart. everyone. it’s just a matter of helping that person learn in a way that suits them. and i know that the school system disagrees and throws around bullshit terms like “gifted” and “natural talent” but let me tell you?? that kid in your biology class who answers every question without even looking up?? his parents made him take a summer course. that kid who scored a 1600 on the sat first try?? she’s been studying since 7th grade. that kid who makes anything sound good because they articulate so damn well?? they have like 30 quizlets dedicated to expanding their vocabulary.

we’re all trained to feign indifference when we win 1st place, when we get that A we worked so hard for. but you know what? fuck intelligence. that took effort, and it’s unfortunate that we’re supposed to act like it was nothing. it’s like the duck analogy: on the surface we’re gliding calmly along, but below we’re paddling like hell.

if i sound angry, i am. i grew up in a very high-achieving town. in middle school, i struggled with mental illness and because of that, couldn’t find to motivation to put in the extra effort. and you know what? i felt absolutely stupid. all around me were these kids that kept being labeled as “gifted” by teachers, and i was there getting side-eyed because i was too afraid to turn anything in. i barely graduated seventh grade, and by school standards, that meant i was stupid. because i wasn’t one of the “smart kids”, i was told that i would never be smart. 

after middle school, my mental health started to improve and i gained an incentive to succeed in school: i wanted to prove them wrong. i studied all summer. all summer. i made a rigorous study plan. i covered the years of curriculum i missed. and guess what!! i have a 4.1 gpa in high school.

anon, i promise you that you have the potential to be smart. i have no doubt about it. don’t let anyone ever tell you that you’re born with intelligence or the lack of. it’s 110% what you do with what you’re given. prove them wrong.

youtube

Am I smarter than you? 2 Girls & Onision take an IQ test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prVegcIVM1s

Hidden Treasures (cereal)

Introduced in 1993, alongside Sprinkle Spangles, the cereal consisted of sweetened corn squares that all looked the same, but were meant to be filled with a fruity filling. The icing filling flavors were cherry, orange and grape. To emphasize the treasure hunt dynamic, some pieces had no icing filling, and were hollow. Thanks to the process by which the icing filled pieces were made, clever children would have little difficulty noticing the pattern: pieces with a seam very close to the edge were grape, off-center orange, and directly center seams had cherry. Hidden Treasures was discontinued by 1995.

Link