I wonder how predictive you can or can't get of "general factor intelligence", math ability, education level, with a single question.
There's that "Wordsum" thing in the GSS, ten questions, supposedly does pretty well.
EG for language ability, if you ask people in the US to translate a single word in a language like Arabic/Korean/Mandarin/Japanese, that probably gets you a very large % of the way to separating fluent speakers from non-speakers with only a few like, new students in the mix.
But you couldn't do that with French or Spanish (at least not with just any word) because there's more cultural familiarity and cross-over.
(And/or because the ratio of "partial students to fluent speakers" is larger.)
People bash tech interviews but "you only have a few questions, how much information can you get from them" is an interesting problem/meta-problem.
(Of course one reason they bash them is it works less well when people know the questions. "When a metric becomes a target it ceases to be a good metric" and all that.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's this weird black-and-white discourse pairing on this site where on the one hand "the elite are always the real fascists" but on the other hand "people are radicalized by material suffering" and it kind of just goes around in circles because they're both too simple duh.
So like when that guy shot up Vegas, someone found IDK he'd lost money gambling, "aha here's the material suffering!". But he was also rich so "aha, it's the rich guys you have to watch out for!". And it's all just like, scoring points or something?
So then people end up arguing about the material circumstances of these people they've never met based on like, pictures of their stuff, in order to score points for one or the other side, which then implies ??? about anything useful.
Glad someone else noticed the terrible editing of "Man Of Steel". I honestly don't notice editing except when it's really egregious so it's nice to watch an analysis of why I sat there with my jaw on the floor at that midnight screening.
When I notice editing it's just like "this is...wrong and bad, isn't it?". But I don't really know how to explain it.
I mean part of this is the problem with "never-ending stories". Batman CAN'T put a permanent dent in the Gotham crime problem (at least not the "Joker keeps killing everyone" kind of crime). Personally I just take each issue/run as its own thing.
If you want something where a galactic war story slowly transitions into a "managing a reasonable near-utopia" story, well, I bet there's some great sci-fi novel series (there must be, there are so many sci-fi novel series). But "Star Wars" just isn't likely to ever do that.
"If Twitter were nationalized then it would have banned the President long ago" is an opinion probably someone on here has had.
I mean maybe, I don't actually know how aggressive it would be about such things. Would it depend on if it were run by like a Congressional committee vs. direct hires in the bureaucracy vs. Presidential appointees.
Noah is always like "Twitter is a search for the worst of humanity" and IDK I think of it more as a way to talk to people I like about things I like to talk about.
There's kind of a parallel right-coded discourse but they call it "civics" or something.
I am, you know, pro-humanities, see for example how I spend all day reading and writing about politics and history as I have for many years. But is the idea that the median American knew more humanities in...1930? 1950? 1970? 2000? What?