970
Trump State Department official has called for mass sterilization of ‘low-IQ trash’
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
970 points (98.9% liked)
politics
23703 readers
2630 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This article does a pretty decent job pointing out some of the variabilities that make IQ test unreliable. Tbh I think the concept of IQ is fruit from the poisoned tree. There are so many people that stake their positions and identities on the efficacy of IQ that the whole data pool is kinda poisoned. For every study that makes a claim, there are other studies rebutting it.
I would have to search for it, i originally read about it when I was in college over a decade ago. Basically the claim was that the vast majority of the tests originate or are interpreted from English or another western language. When certain aspects of the test are interpreted to a different language the sentence structure is modified in a way where it adds an additional barrier for the test taker.
This may be somewhat solved by the different language speakers creating their own test, but that may not overcome the problem due to the need for global standardization, orit may be a barrier to language speakers who's cultures haven't invested the time or resources to the idea of IQ to begin with.
Ah, right. Yeah, there are some age-old criticisisms of IQ test like translating into a different language can skew the result, or relying on concepts that are cultural but not obviously cultural (like the way buildings are shaped) can skew the result. I'm not generally interested in comparing IQ results between countries or even for people of differing first language though so these don't especially concern me so long as I can be sure a study averts the issue.
From the paper you linked:
Hard agree. IQ cannot be said to measure intelligence. But for instance, it correlates well with success (level of education (eventually) reached, or $ in a capitalist society) and I'd be surprised to find any major journal publishing a paper which disputes that.
My point is the variability between test groups calls into question the reliability of IQ as a concept as a whole. If IQ is an innate measurement of intellect for humans in general, then the reliability of the test shouldn't be culturally constrained.
Yes, but I could make the same claim about a plethora of other correlations with more confidence like having wealthy parents.
IQ is not a measurement of human intellect in general. Also, the fact that the test is flawed does not mean it is not useful in some contexts.
Regarding correlation with success, I should have specified that the correlation still exists even when controlling for birth environment.
I don't think there's a scientific consensus of what IQ really measures.
I would say that would be extremely difficult to definitively prove. IQ is more of a social study than a hard science, typically this kinda data is more suggestive than it is definite.
There may not be scientific consensus on what IQ measures, but IQ=intellect is widely considered pseudoscience.
What exactly are you claiming? That it's not a test to measure intellect? That IQ is pseudoscience? Or that it's not specifically generalized intellect?
It's polite etiquette to mention what you're quoting.
It's obviously a common definition of IQ...... It doesn't really matter where it's from as it shows that general definitions of IQ claim it's a test of generalized intellect.
Your quote doesn't really refute my argument, or clarify what claim you are making?
I was quoting the same page you were quoting.
I'd say IQ is an attempt at concretizing a notion of intelligence. There's little consensus on what intelligence really means, so there's not much more to say than that. In other words, IQ is just a number. More relevant is what IQ can be found to correlate with.