V17

Actually no. Self-defense + concealed carry is allowed in Baltic states as well and home defense (=no concealed carry) is also allowed in Italy and Austria.

It’s just guns for self-defense, isn’t a thing.

Not really, it is a thing in Switzerland and Czechia for example.

And even outside of that, not every country has laws as strict as Germany or UK.

Czechia: To get a gun for self-defense, you need to get a permit, which includes mandatory training, tests and a psychological evaluation (which, from what I’ve heard, is not hard to get). You need to have a clean criminal record and they check your misdemeanors too (you may not be allowed to get a permit if you’ve had issues with public drunkenness for example). However, after that you can not only buy a gun but also are automatically allowed to concealed carry.

There are several types of permits and getting a permit for sports or hunting is slightly easier. You need to be 21 years old to get a self-defense permit, you can get a hunting or sports permit when you’re 18 or in special situations (used under supervision) when you’re 15. The permits last 10 years, but you can lose them if you get a criminal record. The gun permit registry is managed by the state police, so it’s easy for them to check the validity of your license if they need to do so.

Gun violence is very rare, so I’m happy with this and see no reason to change it. The people that I know who have a permit (it’s quite uncommon) are very responsible with it.

There are restrictions on which weapons a civilian can buy. No automatic weapons for sure, but I think you can get some semi-automatic guns with a suppressor (cause I’ve heard a guy recommending one such gun with sub-sonic ammo for potential home-defense, stating “if I really have to use it, there’s no reason why my family should go deaf in the process”, heh).

I mean, ignorant, fine, but propagandist??

Deimos is a dumb piece of shit. Evidence is that Tildes is somehow still invite only after like five fucking years.

Why do you think this is a bad thing? The best discussion board that I’ve been a member of by a wide margin (not mentioning names, it’s all in Czech anyways) has been invite only for 20 years now. It’s a tried and true way to limit eternal september as long as the community is active enough to not die out, which hasn’t happened yet on Tildes.

Well the rules are pretty clear in that you can call other people’s ideas stupid, but not other people stupid. Personally I prefer spaces with hands-off moderation and focus on free speech, but those generally don’t work in a general discussion platform without any implicit gatekeeping to keep idiots away, so I’m giving this style a chance and so far the results have been far better than most places on Reddit on Lemmy.

Did you mean “social democracy”? I don’t think there’s actual socialism anywhere there - that’s still capitalism, only with a strong welfare system, which has downsides, but it’s obviously viable at least in some societies.

I’m mostly staying in an invite-only board in my local language that’s been functional for like 20 years now and is smarter than Reddit has ever been, but I’m also spending some time on Tildes, which is honestly not bad. Like lemmy, it has a pretty strong leftist bias (which is a problem for me because not being from US or western Europe I don’t really fall into their left-right division), but it’s much smarter and less toxic, so disagreement without too much bullshit is possible.

I agree, with one exception:

Reddit’s early days were similar, but internet culture has definitely gotten more intense since the early 2010s.

Has it really been that way? I’ve been on reddit since 2010 and from what I remember it was definitely much more nerdy and full of tech people who live on the internet, but I don’t think it had much in common with what we call “terminally online” today. I associate “terminally online” with people who really care about things like culture wars and trying to push their views on others, spending a lot of time arguing about it. Whereas reddit in 2010 was much more homogenous - the stereotypes about forever alone IT nerds with nerdy hobbies were much more true than now, but that meant there were nowhere near as many cultural things to argue about. People sometimes had really weird or controversial opinions, but there was not a lot of added toxicity about it that’s omnipresent now in the discussions.

Ime the “terminally online” problems with toxicity and culture wars only started around 2014-15 with the rise of “online feminism”, that seemed like the first big division into two hostile groups that spent significant time just attacking each other.

I don’t think you understand what I mean, so I’ll try to rephrase.

Knowing that bad shit is happening and accepting that it’s bad shit is one thing. Wallowing in it and pointlessly arguing about it (not normally discussing it in a measured way) is a separate thing that is not necessary and helps neither the ones participating nor the community in general. It’s possible to do it differently and many are capable of it.

My experience is that firstly Lemmy is not that diverse and secondly that there are platforms that are not that diverse either but are much more open and capable of discussion. Tildes for example is in general too progressive for me (I’m not from the US, so I don’t really fit into its politics/culture wars left-right division, though I’m closer to the left), but it’s nowhere near as toxic as political threads around here and it’s normally possible to have discussion and disagree in a civil way.

The problem is that the people OP complains about generally don’t want to see anything else and pointlessly argue with you if you do it. Personally I’m slowly ending my Lemmy experiment and posting somewhere where the majority cares and is capable of normal discussion.

This is the problem though. It’s fine to mention them and be informed, but there is no need to wallow in how horrible the world is and shut down anybody who disagrees, which is what OP is complaining about (and what IME really is happening in news-like and political threads). Those are two separate things, the second one is a choice and there are places where it doesn’t happen.

I switched from OneNote to Logseq. Its feature set is pretty much completely different, but in the end I realized it’s fine with me and resulted in my notes being more useful.

The main downside that I see now is that it’s kind of slow - much faster than the Electron version of OneNote was last time I used it, but slower than old native OneNote app or Obsidian. Otherwise its main differences from Obsidian are that in Obsidian the basic building unit is a page, whereas in Logseq it’s a paragraph (and, usually, its sub-paragraphs - it’s an outliner), which Obsidian can only do with plug-ins and not as seamlessly, and that with Obsidian you pretty much need to use community plug-ins, whereas with Logseq a lot of the functionality is built-in.

It’s open-source and uses markdown, not completely standard, but close enough for the files to be entirely usable if Logseq ever dies. Its community is smaller than with Obsidian, which is a downside, but it’s not exactly obscure either.

Really probably the most important thing about Obsidian and Logseq is to read an article or watch a video about how automatic backlinking works. It’s especially useful for something like Zettelkasten, but it also works for more “normal” approaches as well as concepts like Getting Things Done.

Both are OK tools and are similar in many ways, but they’re quite different from OneNote. Downside of both is that synchronization between devices sometimes creates issues unless you use their paid service.

(shortened your quotes, message was too long)

IQ tests can be studied for. […]

As far as I know, for properly administrated tests the scientific consensus is that this is not true, with a few small sample size studies showing some improvement and a lot of larger studies repeatedly failing to show anything. You provide no evidence, which in this particular case (something that goes against most of IQ research) would be warranted imo, so I can only guess what you mean in particular. As far as I know, even with potentially neglected children from environments with not enough stimulation, where the theoretical potential clearly exists, the results have been mixed.

(and it’s utterly ludicrous, incidentally, to conceive of “intelligence” as a single thing that can be boiled down into a single number!)

I don’t think this is a popular claim in psychometrics and I haven’t said so either.

IQ tests have major cultural components. […].

A lot of effort went into mitigating this issue, and while it cannot be erased, it doesn’t really invalidate IQ as a concept in any way. It is one of the reasons why we don’t call people from more significantly different societies that one might very crudely describe as “primitive” unintelligent (and yes, some meanings of IQ can lose relevance in such societies), but afaik available evidence shows that there’s not much difference between the results and usefulness of IQ in the US, Germany or China.

IQ test results vary by the quality of education available. […]

Without more information you cannot say whether it indicated what you say or whether it indicates that more intelligent people tend to be more successful, which creates generational wealth/education differences on its own.

I am not claiming either, but let me give you a counter anecdote: Czechia doesn’t really have bad neighborhoods and terrible schooling, we were forced to all be equally poor during 40 years of communism, which has only been changing quite slowly - there are about 2 real “ghettos” in the whole country, it’s safe everywhere and schools are paid from state tax money, wages set by law etc. So there’s almost no difference in funding between a school in a poor area and a “rich” area (with significant quotation marks), and most schools are on a similar level of quality.

Despite that, the studied qualities of IQ still apply here, and have done so since IQ research started here, even during communism where the societal differences were even smaller outside of the ruling class.

The obvious exception: you’re too poor to provide proper nutrition to your children, you for live under constant existential stress etc. These likely lower your IQ and likely contribute the Flynn effect (see below).

IQ numbers have been rising over time to the point that someone who got an IQ score of 140 in the 1970s would score as a borderline idiot today.

This is incorrect and all it would take to know that is opening the wikipedia page on Flynn effect. Since different tests measure different types of intelligence and are standardized individually, it’s not easily possible to say “IQ xxx in 1970 would be IQ yyy in 2020”. But it seems to change by about 3 points per decade, the change has been slowing down and in some cases even reversing in some developed countries in recent decades, and the change has always been the most prominent in the lower end of the scale and not very visible in the high end.

Based on that we can be reasonably sure that a person with an IQ score of 140 in the 1970s would still be considered gifted at the least, and it is possible that they would score around 140 today as well. I’m sure that with some effort you could find some mathematician or physicist who was measured around that score in the 1970s and is still considered obviously briliant.

(if anything it might be a negative trend, given American politics in particular!). Yet if there wasn’t a built-in corrective factor applied that changes each year IQ scores would be rocketing skyward. Again this hints at something learned, and not intrinsic.

See above. I’m too lazy to go find if the US suffers from reverse Flynn effect, but there have been researchers claiming that median IQ has been going down, though I think it’s not a mainstream consensus opinion. In any case, IQ has not been skyrocketing in the US for some time as far as I know.

Furthermore, the Flynn effect is an effect widely studied by actual scientists, it’s not a thing that disproves psychometrics, it’s an area of research of psychometrics.

So IQ measures something … but nobody can say what it is.

Literal books have been written on this. You just have to read them. The IQ is used because we know that it’s a useful metric for many things, it’s pretty much as simple as that.

My experience so far has been:

• “default” reddit, like /r/popular etc. has been worse, because reddit started using some form of “the algorithm” which pretty aggressively pushes controversial subreddits with high engagement, and those tend to be dumb and toxic. Amitheasshole, twohottakes etc. are the most obvious ones.

• customized, highly selective reddit with as much crap from the frontpage as possible unsubscribed from is not significantly worse than a year ago, but then again, it was already pretty bad a year ago. Since the API changes I’ve had 3 people block me to get the last word in an argument, for simply disagreeing with them, without me being an asshole. This is quite annoying in a small subreddit where such a person posts regularly, but it may have just been bad luck.

• Lemmy… Well, 3 things that I probably dislike about reddit the most, not because they’re the worst things that happen there, but because they’re so damn prevalent, are overmoderation (heavy handed deletions of posts and comment trees, unnecessarily locking threads that are even mildly controversial, things like banning people for ever posting in a controversial community etc.), strong american partisanship where if people realize you don’t agree with them on everything with regards to society/politics/culture wars, they immediately assume you’re from the opposite american camp and that you must have bad intentions, and finally simply people not being very smart on average.

Well, all three of those problems seem to be just as prevalent on large Lemmy instances, the first two even more in some places. And whereas on reddit many people understood that you’re probably not realistically going to be able to create an alternative subreddit to some huge default with hundreds of thousands of users, so the “go make your own subreddit” copout is not very practical, here “go make your own instance” seems to be one of the default reactions to any criticisms.

That said, Tildes seems to be doing okay. It’s even smaller and it doesn’t really try to be a reddit alternative, but it’s considerably smarter and more sane on average than both Reddit and Lemmy.

I don’t think this is an argument against the usefulness of IQ. Firstly not all countries use standardized tests with such an influence (I’m from Czechia and we don’t, there’s a standardized high school leaving examination, but it’s only necessary to pass, the score is generally unimportant for university admission). Secondly all you’re saying is that the tests correlate with IQ. That does not make them or IQ invalid, it may just as well simply mean that they test how well a student does in school, and having a higher IQ tends to make studying easier.

But mostly, again, psychometrics is the one field of psychology that has relatively rigorous and reliable methodology. The idea that you disprove decades of research, from large scale statistic studies made with cooperation of state institutions to expensive and rare research like various twin studies, simply by saying “actually IQ doesn’t matter” is naive at best. There really isn’t a lot of reasons to say that apart from ideological ones.

IQ isn’t even a good metric of intelligence, just of the ability to do well at IQ tests.

I’ve seen this repeated ad nauseam on reddit in any slightly relevant threads, but it seems completely unfounded. Psychometrics is one of the subfields of psychology that doesn’t suffer from an apocalyptic replication crysis, like for example social psychology, and there’s decades of research on IQ. Please note that I’m not saying that IQ is the most important measure of a person or anything like that, but it’s a pretty good metric that demonstrably correlates to/predicts a lot of things with reasonable confidence.

The point of the movie is to show how stupid people are everywhere, and it’s their fault that the world is going to shit. Which is an elitist, shitty argument. It completely ignores the direct involvement of those with a vested interest in keeping people ignorant of the world around them.

In my experience, in real life it’s more common that people just don’t care about wellbeing of others who are worse off/more ignorant, than it being malice, but otherwise I agree.

Sure, you can make an argument that a certain level of intelligence is inheritable… but not to such a degree that is implied by the movie, or by how people interpret it.

I agree with this as well, and with other critics you write below. I don’t think it’s a very good movie.

Sure, you may not have quite the same ability to quickly consume and interpret information… but most everyone has the ability to do it eventually. It’s just a matter of how much you want to.

But I don’t think this is the case. Firstly I don’t like the “it’s a matter of how much you want to”, because that’s very close to blaming a person for not being born smart enough. Secondly, even if what you say is true - it’s a matter of time and effort - the reality is that at some point the time and effort needed would be so huge that it’s the same as “not able to do it at all”, because an information that was acquired/way to solve a problem that was found was only relevant ten years ago and is completely useless now. Most people simply don’t have it in them to seriously work on a unified theory of physics, but most people (though a considerably smaller “most”) also don’t have it in them to be a good strategic leader of a company, who does nothing as complicated as theoretical physicists, but needs to solve problems in a smart way fast to be good for anything.

This is a bit of a controversial topic that’s surely bigger than this thread, but I’m going to leave it here anyway for other people reading this.

You talk about trailer parks/low income families vs rich families, but I think that Idiocracy is not about income, it’s about being dumb. Part of which is just cultural (ignorance), but part of it seems to be intelligence. And as far as I know, there’s no evidence that any kid can become as intelligent as anyone else with proper raising and education. Research seems to pretty clearly show that IQ is heritable to a significant degree, and while it can be needlessly lowered in many ways (like malnutrition or high stress in critical development phases), in the absence of these issues no enrichment is able to raise it.

Despite how controversial it is in some circles, the Wikipedia article on the topic seems to be pretty good.

However, since the movie really is not deep, it’s possible that its whole point was just that the idiocy is cultural, and in that case the above obviously doesn’t apply. I’m just saying what it seemed like to me.

I think that’s willfully distorting the situation. Punching down should refer to jokes that seem to be or obviously are made with malicious intent, it’s not about certain groups being protected from humor altogether, that’s infantilizing. From what OP said and posted somewhere in this thread I don’t think their jokes were in any way malicious.