this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2026
910 points (97.1% liked)

politics

31112 readers
2469 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A study conducted in Germany found that men with higher IQs are less inclined to traditional values, but the lead author, psychologist and intelligence researcher Maximilian Krolo of Saarland University, said the researchers did not find these differences among women.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip 42 points 5 months ago (5 children)

IQ testing is pseudoscience. It's one of the preferred methods of the far right to try to differentiate between races for that very reason. Pseudoscience is a lot more malleable for their purposes than the settled science that says race doesn't exist biologically.

Having a "high IQ" is only proof that you're good at IQ tests.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 20 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

Veritasium made a video talking about IQ tests, their validity and so on. https://youtu.be/FkKPsLxgpuY

One of my key takeaways: IQ tests have some validity as a diagnostic tool for asessing cognitive disabilities or illnesses, but they should not be taken as serious and significant as many less informed people seem to do.

[–] odelik@lemmy.today 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

For your own privacy, and the privacy of everybody else interacting with you.

When you share a YouTube link, if you don't remove the si=ID, anybody that clicks on that link will then be associated with you. It's one of the tools Google uses to track your internet usage.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 3 points 5 months ago
[–] 1D10@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Veritasium is the puppet of an investment firm.

Your takeaway on IQ is accurate.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

One of my key takeaways is that it may have some value in aggregate, like this study, but does not tell an individual how smart they are

[–] fenrasulfr@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Also see it as a tool, I do think that tool has to be adapted to the region to be usefull. A Dutch or French IQ test (not even language related) would not be usefull in Brazil or Namibia. As far as I know to be usefull it needs to be based on local education and living situations.

[–] NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not completely pseudo-science, as there are a lot of correlations with things like academic success or job performance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Oh yea, so does your zip code.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

[H]owever much all this soothes my vanity, and however much I appreciate being vice-president of Mensa, an organization which bases admission to its membership on IQ, I must, in all honesty, maintain that it means nothing.

What, after all, does such an intelligence test measure but those skills that are associated with intelligence by the individuals designing the test? And those individuals are subject to the cultural pressures and prejudices that force a subjective definition of intelligence. [...]

The whole thing is a self-perpetuating device. Men in intellectual control of a dominating section of society define themselves as intelligent, then design tests that are a series of clever little doors that can let through only minds like their own, thus giving them more evidence of "intelligence" and more examples of "intelligent people" and therefore more reason to devise additional tests of the same kind. More circular reasoning!

--Isaac Asimov, "Thinking About Thinking," 1975

[–] MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 months ago

Great quote, thanks!

I think that extreme upper and lower bounds do say something, but few point differences are entirely worthless. Scoring a 70 is rather significant, and 160 probably is too, but 100 vs 90 vs 110? Meaningless.

[–] Smaile@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

its better then getting a low score on a IQ test.