Every time I see someone bring up "IQ scores" I feel the need to repeat: IQ scores were literally invented by eugenicists and they've always been biased towards privilege

[deadsuperhero@social.wedistribute.org]

@[email protected] I can relate in a number of different ways, but when I met you in person, I was floored at your knowledge and the depths of the subjects you shared with me.

To me, genius isn't an IQ score, philosophers immortalized in marble statue, or some kind of Renaissance master. It is the joy, willingness, and curiosity to chase ideas and share findings with great enthusiasm and passion.

You will always be one of my favorite people.

[lordbowlich@hackers.town]

@randomgeek @wordshaper @cwebber my scores varied wildly based on whether the questions had numbers in them, because I had an irrational hatred for numbers.

Numbers are vile things, they belong behind variable names so we don’t have to look at those dirty, filthy things.

[shauna@social.coop]

@cwebber I love everything about this thread.

I see in the link to your Foss and Crafts episode that you reference Amartya Sen - and thus, presumably, the Capability Approach. (I don't remember if the stuff you're doing with Goblins is explicitly tied into this or if it's just a coincidence of naming!)

Anyway this thread made me think of a really good Rutger Claassen article that uses the Capability Approach to redefine agency:

An Agency-based Capability Theory of Justice

(dspace.library.uu.nl)

[ilookloud@retro.pizza]

@cwebber was it the staff being supportive there? Were you encouraged to look for things that you actually like learning about? It sounds so great.

[cwebber@social.coop]

@ilookloud They were very supportive!

[robertse@mastodon.social]

@cwebber Thank you. How about discussing building a bridge between #bsky an #mastodon ? For the sake of all of us?

[cwebber@social.coop]

@RobertSE well, bridgy fed already exists and I don't really think that is my domain or responsibility

[rwg@aoir.social]

@RobertSE @cwebber

Umm... there is one already?

https://fed.brid.gy/

Plus people are setting up a foundation to govern it.

Why are you demanding this of Christine?

[indieterminacy@social.coop]

@cwebber Theres a study on babies, where they are shown a board featuring a smiley trying to go up the hill. There are 2 others, one preventing the ascend, the other assisting.

The babies are offered the others -- they all universally reach for the assister, demonstrating empathy being a hardwired instinct.

Months later they repeat the test.
Its only then that the deviation from the babies to reach for the antagonist emerges -- its an acquired perspective/behaviour in these young meatsacks.

[teajaygrey@snac.bsd.cafe]

It’s one of the annoying things about Doug Engelbart being trapped by the language of his time. He was attempting to explain concepts that were visionary, but stuck with the constraints of the English language of his own era.

Subsequently, his phrasing of “Collective IQ” [citation: https://dougengelbart.org/content/view/172/ ] isn’t really about IQ at all, but about collaboration. The adage of Engelbart and his contemporaries, “each perspective is worth 80 IQ points” (and the additive nature of such things e.g. collective IQ of a group of one is 80, two 160, three 240, etc.) was a way to try to explain that by collaboratively sharing ideas, a group of individuals is more than the sum of any one of its parts.

I’m not certain of the best way to update that phrasing to more contemporary less eugenic loaded terminology. However, having known Doug personally, he was definitely a “strength through diversity “ sort and I didn’t get the eugenics laden IQ angle from him at all.