Why are prog fans such whinging man children who won't shut the fuck up about Tool?
I'm a prog fan who's never listened to Tool but ok
Why are weeaboos such whinging manchilden who won't shut the fuck up about underage anime girl #1495?
>>62510136
Every prog fan i've come across has nearly ripped their dick off at the mere mention of tool
>>62510101
>weeaboo
opinion discarded
>>62510101
Tool fans and prog fans are two very different things you meme loving fuck
Those are Tool fans.
>>62510293
this
>>62510293
Don't know if bait or not.
>>62510195
I'm not much of a prog fan who enjoys Lateralus a fair bit
So what happens now?
The dude from Tool even thinks tool fans are annoying.
>>62510101
I'm a prog fan and I hate tool
Hmmm, maybe it's just an australian thing, every prog fan i've come across in the past 2 years has been an insufferable wank bag of psuedo intellectualism and tool worship.
I may have to withdraw this thread
>>62510386
It's a "real life person" thing. Actual prog fans are too autistic to leave the house unless they have to, and tool gets that one song on the radio sometimes so they're a gateway.
>>62510101
>whinging
what the fuck? is that a real word?
>>62510865
yes
>>62510101
>man children
>posts anime
>>62510101
I'm a prog fan whose IQ is 90 and who remembers almost no non-vocal parts of any of his favourite songs, so literally his entire musical effort is relaying his finds to other people, reccing, so that it doesn't go to waste -- because he's unable to discuss his favourites or even remember their names in many cases.
>>62510386
>australian thing
Yeah they got many Tool worship bands such as Karnivool or Cog
>>62510326
Most prog guys don't dig tool
>>62510986
is 90 IQ supposed to be not normal? It's normal
I still can't believe Americans even talk about IQ it is literally a crock of meaningless shit
>>62511274
I'm not American, and there is no personality factor subject to a greater machine of self-delusion and willful ignorance than IQ ('IQ is meaningless unless you put it to use', 'multiple intelligences', 'I know a smart/stupid person who...', 'you can always choose to give more effort', 'motivation matters more than IQ', and other fallacies). Again, people won't learn about its heredity and validity until they educate themselves, and they won't educate themselves until they realize that it is far more than 'what IQ tests measure' and that there's literally no better predictor of success.
tl;dr enjoy your ignorance. I have long learned better than to try to educate people.
>>62511379
you're retarded
it's a crock of shit and it correlates with nothing it claims to show
I say this as someone who would score very highly
>>62511435
>you're retarded
That's what I said.
>it's a crock of shit and it correlates with nothing it claims to show
Motivation does not excuse lying. And don't bother to begin moving the goalposts, 'it correlates with SOME things, but insignificantly', either.
>I say this as someone who would score very highly
That it is intelligent people who deny its validity most, either out of fear of responsibility for acknowledging their IQs' rarity and social importance before the public or out of misguided empathy ('there there, IQ doesn't matter either way, it's fine that you don't have it') has long stopped being news.
tl;dr stop. You can't know yet, but unlike 99.995% of the population, I'm not going to swallow the self-delusion regarding IQ.
>>62511523
>>62511379
In fact, again, IQ denialists like yourself actually harm the society profoundly by hampering social eugenic programs, but they do it unwittingly. Perhaps if they realized the social correlates of IQ, compassion would make them stop.
>>62511580
>by hampering social eugenic programs
if this isn't bait you have some serious issues with self hate. Rejecting eugenics is not bad for society
plenty of scientists discredit IQ anyway, it just doesn't make sense for there to be a single way in which some brains are better than others
there are so many different ways to think right, why would your general proficiency all be determined by a single number
most importantly of all 90 isn't anywhere near retarded. 100 is a fixed median, retarded is supposed to be like 70
>don't bother to begin moving the goalposts, 'it correlates with SOME things, but insignificantly'
it doesn't correlate strongly with anything at all
>>62510386
>australian
>insufferable wank bag
Looks like you've just answered your own question.
>>62511801
>self hate
Realizations of inferiority don't have to come with self-hate, even if it tends to be a phase.
>Rejecting eugenics is not bad for society
Educate yourself on elementary facts of epidemiology of IQ, if you don't find your children having memories and being talented and creative a reason enough.
>plenty of scientists discredit IQ anyway
Of course. 'Plenty' is always a conveniently spacious enough word to use.
>it just doesn't make sense for there to be a single way in which some brains are better than others
Why?
>there are so many different ways to think right
This pseudoargument makes no sense. IQ underlies the entire involuntary memorization of frameworks -- empirical, linguistic, mathematical, programmatic, innumerable others -- in which validity of thought can be determined in the first place, not even to mention of individual facts which to discuss.
>why would your general proficiency all be determined by a single number
The strawman of determinism has been evoked too often as well.
>most importantly of all 90 isn't anywhere near retarded. 100 is a fixed median, retarded is supposed to be like 70
I used 'retarded' in the literal sense of delayed.
>it doesn't correlate strongly with anything at all
>strongly
You literally did what I told you not to do in the line you quoted.
tl;dr stop. You don't know what you're talking about. This is not fine, but not near bad enough as what you're doing.
>>62511976
>Why?
Also I missed the 'single' there.
It's a glaringly retarded error to confuse the expressibility of general intelligence through IQ with the strawman that said intelligence is somehow *structurally* as simple as a single number. Of course it's a thoroughly complex phenomenon cerebrally; but this in no way affects the depth and breadth of validity of IQ, yes, the single number.
>>62511976
I'll say whatever I like thanks
you're 100% full of shit
there is no inferiority between people and if you can't accept that I can't talk to you
>>62512076
in saying IQ "underlies" these thought frameworks you're suggesting it explains them rather than just so badly trying to describe them
I don't even consider tool prog.
>>62512154
>there is no inferiority between people
La la la.
>in saying IQ "underlies" these thought frameworks you're suggesting it explains them rather than just so badly trying to describe them
I don't understand what you're saying here. I'm saying that IQ is responsible for the alacrity and accuracy of mastery (in intelligent people, in childhood) of principles enabling discussion of, for instance, engineering, or linguistics, or music, or logical inferences, or statistics, if not the obvious broader ones such as importance of defining your terms, parsimony and literalness of communication, and so on.
>>62512250
>I don't understand what you're saying here. I'm saying that IQ is responsible for the alacrity and accuracy of mastery (in intelligent people, in childhood) of principles enabling discussion of, for instance, engineering, or linguistics, or music, or ...
yeah and I'm saying it's definitely not. Some people learn engineering well and some people cannot do that but they are musically powerful. There is no single number you can give both these people that will sum up what they can do
most importantly of all the idea that IQ is "responsible" for their ability is ridiculous. They have certain abilities and you can try to arbitrarily stick a number on it if you like
>>62512250
>>62512154
>La la la.
In fact, fun fact: your denialism of IQ isn't, obviously, intended to convince anyone that IQ is not important; because everyone already knows that it is. What it is designed to do is to convince people, by example, that *lying* about its importance is socially acceptable; it is to justify white lies, to suggest that some subjects are better left lied about 'for the greater good of motivating people, because if we understate the role of IQ than the simpletons will feel happier and more driven'.
>>62512401
>bullshit strawman trash
ok
anyway I never denied you might be disabled in some ways it's just the number is a useless (and borderline irrelevant) measurement of the ways
>>62512361
>There is no single number you can give both these people that will sum up what they can do
>>62512361
>you can try to arbitrarily stick a number on it if you like
The error here is, surprise, again a strawman. No one has ever claimed that IQ predicts accurately ('sums ups', 'encompasses after being sticked at') an individual's particular future, what they're going to exactly do and be good about. But the misconception here is that of finding broader tendencies, broader eventual undercurrents of one's life, somehow impossible to subject to empirical discussion. Namely, you're implying here that as soon as IQ's validity doesn't predicts 'hard' facts such as tangible states of the body, e.g. the brain, then it is irrelevant. False. It perfectly measurably predicts the broad amount of interests and aptitude at those. This is as hard a scientific fact as any.
>>62512497
>the number is a useless (and borderline irrelevant) measurement of the ways
I find it genuinely disappointing that you seem to be addressing in your rhetoric people who will find such blatant lies convincing and don't aspire higher.
>>62512534
no this is exactly what it doesn't do
you do not sum up all abilities with one number
that doesn't make sense
>>62512562
same again
What the hell is this thread about anymore
>>62512726
>you do not sum up all abilities with one number
I have already explained this error, more than once I think.
You cling to the image you've yourself concocted of people using IQ in some vague 'determining' manner and are unable to let go of the verb 'sum up'. IQ measures performance of the brain. It doesn't 'sum it up' in the sense of somehow nullifying the various parametres of its function and application. Brains obviously differ in particular ways just as people differ in individual aptitudes. But IQ predicts the *amount* of aptitude you're going to distribute among various subjects over the course of your life, regardless of the particular minor factors determining what it's going to be.
That said, you're still tens of fallacies away from understanding the subject (just think of the free will fallacy which you'd evoke after conceding IQ's validity, 'you can choose to overcome the limitations it imposes!'), and I don't have as many hours to spend at you.
>>62512848
Idiocy.
>>62512899
>IQ predicts the *amount* of aptitude
so you're saying... the sum
>>62512899
In other words, I'm coming to dislike analogies, but saying that IQ is meaningless because particular aptitudes exist is like saying that running speed doesn't exist because people can run into different directions.
>>62512965
I have long considered you're baiting, but in fact this doesn't even matter, because there are many genuine disbelievers in IQ on this board which could use reading the explanation I gave.
>>62513004
really not baiting you're just contradicting yourself. Summing up all intellectual skills (as you have eventually admitted IQ tries to do) does not fulfil the purpose because you can't infer back whether someone has a particular skill from their IQ
i.e. that person could be low IQ and high intelligence
this is ignoring the fact that IQ doesn't even test creative abilities
>>62513004
>>62512965
Also, yes, 'the sum'. The problem is the ambiguity. I'm using the term in the falsifiable, quantifiable sense that IQ predicts the range, the breadth of one's interests; you used the term in the sense purporting that IQ somehow disallows minor divergences of people's paths ('IQ doesn't sum up human futures because some people have hobby A while some have hobby B, and their aptitude depends on other factors as well', viz. >>62512361 and your use of '...WHAT they can do' in that post).
>>62513088
>Summing up all intellectual skills (as you have eventually admitted IQ tries to do)
I have admitted no such thing (see >>62513104) and any careful reader of this thread will see that you have just elected to lie.
>low IQ and high intelligence
Redefinition of intelligence so to deprive the term of its predictive power and empirical basis ('no true intelligence', 'you're not truly intelligent unless you do something with your life', which -- 'doing something with one's life' -- is ambiguous enough to seem attainable by even the retards, thus giving them hope and obscuring the importance of empirically relating achievement of various kinds of success to natural and nurtural factors such as IQ) is a whole different subject.
>IQ doesn't even test creative abilities
False again. Again, don't bother backpedalling into 'it hardly tests them' either.
>>62513250
there has been no redefinition of intelligence, you have no competing definition of your own
IQ doesn't at all test creative abilities in any part
holy shit everyone that's posted above this post should probably kill themselves
>>62513315
>there has been no redefinition of intelligence
You have literally either committed it or referenced it. 'Low IQ and high intelligence'. Considering that 'IQ' stands for 'Intelligence Quotient', there must have been some definitional divergence and appropriation SOMEWHERE.
>you have no competing definition of your own
It is a common misconception that there must be a verbal, agreed-upon definition of intelligence to measure it and discuss its correlates. Not true at all; the g factor measurable by tests would remain externally valid even if there were no attempts to define it verbally ('intelligence is the ability to adapt and solve problems and learn blah blah blah' at all).
>IQ doesn't at all test creative abilities in any part
You don't even fathom how wrong you are. Since measurements are bidirectional, there are no creative abilities that DON'T measure IQ. Literally every famous painter with technical ability (i.e., representational or truly abstract, not pseudoabstract black squares) had IQ 130+. Composers are even higher.
>>62513447
literally everything you say is wrong
you do need to agree what intelligence is to measure it
technical ability is not creative ability nor is it related
do you have any more wrong things? You'#d make a pretty good Oracle if we just negated everything you said
>>62513517
I think I have made my case. Not that I convinced anyone; on the subject of IQ, people are unconvinceable.
>>62513380
Not everyone.
why is it so fucking impossible for /mu/ to have a decent prog thread
What prog band has the best fanbase? King Crimson? Gentle Giant? Aphrodite's Child?
>original thread about prog fans
>d-bags arguing about the ins and outs of IQ
>>62513595
Considering that I (the IQ defender ITT) like both KC and GG, I'd wager AC.
>>62513585
/mu/ has plenty of good prog threads, read the OP if you want to know why this one was not good
Fans of anything are whiny man children
>>62513602
>d-bags
Go away
>>62510136
i'm a prog fan too, they are boring
