Boris: Housing, the Economy, and Everything..

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Some cornflakes will be high IQ some will be lowIQ.

Still doesn't say that those with the lowest IQs will be shaken to the top.

Within the box you will have highs and lows evenly spread. (Unless they have been selected placed in the box).

All shaking them may do is allow the high IQs to move to the top if they want to.

Well I think most people will, like me, take it that Boris was implying that the box has 'settled' with the low IQ's at the bottom, and the highs at the top.

Shaking it will give a good chance that some of the bottom ones will rise to the top.

But each to their own.

He could have used an analogy involving cesspits but he's too polite.....

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Well I think most people will, like me, take it that Boris was implying that the box has 'settled' with the low IQ's at the bottom, and the highs at the top.

Shaking it will give a good chance that some of the bottom ones will rise to the top.

But each to their own.

He could have used an analogy involving cesspits but he's too polite.....

Might depend whether you choose Kellogs finest or LIDL own brand in the first place.

Does IQ correlate with the ability to float or is that reserved for politicians.

Kennyboy66

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Specifically:



It reminds me, a bit, of Thatcher's "No such thing as society" comment - so vilified by the media at the time. When you read the actual words, and the actual context of the question she was asked, her sentiment was 'spot on' and in tune with most of the population who understand what she was saying.

This, Section 28 homophobia, the poll tax, broadcast ban on elected Sinn Fein politicians, attacking the ANC & Mandela......

She really did lose the plot in her 3rd term.

ukcarper

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Well I think most people will, like me, take it that Boris was implying that the box has 'settled' with the low IQ's at the bottom, and the highs at the top.

Shaking it will give a good chance that some of the bottom ones will rise to the top.

But each to their own.

He could have used an analogy involving cesspits but he's too polite.....

The problem is that the intensity at which the box is being shaken is falling as shown by social mobility falling.

Loughton_Monkey

ukcarper wrote: »

The problem is that the intensity at which the box is being shaken is falling as shown by social mobility falling.

Which is, I think, exactly what Boris was saying.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Specifically:

Stakhanovites
Cojones
Eupeptically
Schwerpunkt

Despite a grammar school education, these are not in my everyday vocabulary. If they are in yours then I applaud you.

I agree use of IQ itself is in decline, but it is simply an objective measure. For example, to be below 70 means you are amongst the lowest 2.5% of the population in the intelligence stakes.

Doesn't mean you can't run a business, and doesn't (in itself) mean you won't get to Cambridge [look at Prince Charles for proof]. But in all honesty, you are most unlikely to....

My take on it was that Boris was effectively stating the fact that 16% are below 85 [do you disagree?], and in order for some of these to rise to the top, we must "shake the pack". Quite a positive remark. I'd be interested to know exactly why you think that was 'misjudged'? Should we not shake the pack and let them stay at the bottom? Or should we 'pretend' that people below 85 IQ don't exist and ignore them? Or should we recognise them, but simply use a euphemism like "ADHD" or "Special Needs" or "Educationally Challenged"?

To me that's the same as refusing to refer to immigration, but to say "net migration". Or [worse] refer to immigrants as "Ethnic Minorities".

It reminds me, a bit, of Thatcher's "No such thing as society" comment - so vilified by the media at the time. When you read the actual words, and the actual context of the question she was asked, her sentiment was 'spot on' and in tune with most of the population who understand what she was saying.

I didn't know the German word, but don't speak German so didn't bother to look it up (ugly language).

I realised when mentioned IQs that I'm not actually sure what average/low/high IQ grades are. I work at a university and so am surrounded by academics who would probably score highly on that sort of test, but are functionally useless when it comes to social skills/mentoring/problem solving/initiative/resourcefulness/basic admin etc. They need those with lower IQ scores to sort out their paperwork, keep their labs equipped and the building clean.

I'm afraid the cornflake shaking analogy was lost on me because I don't like cereal- aren't the bits at the bottom broken and gritty and not meant to be eaten?

I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcome, which I think might have been what Johnson was trying to say, but it was clumsily phrased.

I definitely didn't like his suggestion that we would all be better off "relying" on charitable offerings from the super-rich when they are beset by a philanthropic whim (or advised to donate for tax reasons). A civilised country organises its taxation and infrastructure so it can support its own citizens; not hope for occasional handouts from those who happened to have got rich.

angrypirate

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I didn't know the German word, but don't speak German so didn't bother to look it up (ugly language).

I realised when mentioned IQs that I'm not actually sure what average/low/high IQ grades are. I work at a university and so am surrounded by academics who would probably score highly on that sort of test, but are functionally useless when it comes to social skills/mentoring/problem solving/initiative/resourcefulness/basic admin etc. They need those with lower IQ scores to sort out their paperwork, keep their labs equipped and the building clean.

I'm afraid the cornflake shaking analogy was lost on me because I don't like cereal- aren't the bits at the bottom broken and gritty and not meant to be eaten?

I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcome, which I think might have been what Johnson was trying to say, but it was clumsily phrased.

I definitely didn't like his suggestion that we would all be better off "relying" on charitable offerings from the super-rich when they are beset by a philanthropic whim (or advised to donate for tax reasons). A civilised country organises its taxation and infrastructure so it can support its own citizens; not hope for occasional handouts from those who happened to have got rich.

Average is 100. Mensa cutoff is above somewhere between 130 and 140 depending on the IQ test (98th percentile). Hawkin's is something like 160.

Loughton_Monkey

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

......I'm afraid the cornflake shaking analogy was lost on me because I don't like cereal- aren't the bits at the bottom broken and gritty and not meant to be eaten?

I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcome, which I think might have been what Johnson was trying to say, but it was clumsily phrased.

I definitely didn't like his suggestion that we would all be better off "relying" on charitable offerings from the super-rich when they are beset by a philanthropic whim (or advised to donate for tax reasons). A civilised country organises its taxation and infrastructure so it can support its own citizens; not hope for occasional handouts from those who happened to have got rich.

I thought the cornflakes were 'spot on'. He clearly relates it to the income distribution - low at the bottom, high at the top - and Boris is agreeing with you about opportunity. Page 9 "... we help those who genuinely can't compete; and we provide opportunity for those that can.."

But I fear you may have misconstrued his comments on the rich. Nowhere can I find him talking about charity - but just reflecting that they [the top 1%] used to pay 11% of the total tax revenues, and now they pay 30% ..... "That is an awful lot of schools and roads and hospitals......."

Boris is clearly not going to appeal to lifelong labour votors, but my key 'take' on this is that Boris speaks a lot of sense to the middle or right - and is probably the only pro-immigration one in the party.

angrypirate

What I bascially took from his speech was that "Clever people born into poverty deserve the opportunity for them to climb the ladder and rise to the top" and "Stupid people born to rich parents dont really deserve to be CEOs of daddy's company"

Hes basically saying that everyone is different and people should have the opportunities to progress to the best of their abilities. They should get to where they get on merit, not on the size of their wallet or on who daddy knows.

CLAPTON

angrypirate wrote: »

What I bascially took from his speech was that "Clever people born into poverty deserve the opportunity for them to climb the ladder and rise to the top" and "Stupid people born to rich parents dont really deserve to be CEOs of daddy's company"

Hes basically saying that everyone is different and people should have the opportunities to progress to the best of their abilities. They should get to where they get on merit, not on the size of their wallet or on who daddy knows.

presumably a thinly disguised attack on Dave and George