• isyasad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    It’s tough having a high IQ. Most people don’t understand the world and the flaws of humans, at least at the level I do. As such, I find it hard to connect to other people. Most people are morons. I feel deep sorrow in knowing the direction the world is going and that the inhabitants of the world are mostly idiots.

    Why do so many people (in this thread) unironically feel this way? “Intelligence” is a socially constructed and often useless idea that includes and excludes many things seemingly at random. For example, chess is often thought of as something that’s very intelligent, but skill at chess is (just like nearly anything else) based on practice & experience. Just because you’re good at chess and did well in school doesn’t mean that you alone can understand the problems in the world at a deeper level than an average Jo.

    Everyone should read “What Is Intelligence, Anyway?”, a short excerpt from Isaac Asimov.

    I’ll paste the part I think is most important, but the whole thing is worth reading:

    Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence test. Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but an academician. By every one of those tests, I’d prove myself a moron, and I’d be a moron, too. In a world where I could not use my academic training and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working with my hands, I would do poorly. My intelligence, then, is not absolute but is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an arbiter of such matters.

    • eureka@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Related to tests and skills, What if we just didn’t mark students?, a short talk from a university course runner and educator in general.

      It makes some points that are already familiar or easy to notice, but it’s also an interesting exploration of academia, tests and skills. I know some students who learn under that lecturer and what they’re taling about clearly comes through in the course structure. One notable part is that one tutorial class is responsible for making notes for each week of lectures, and the whole cohort is allowed to bring those collaborative notes into the exam, like a semi-open book test. I heard they just decided one class to have a lesson on rhetoric instead of cybersecurity because it’s a pretty nerdy industry and one involving invisible risks, and there’s no point being an expert if you can’t convince your boss to let you fix the problems.