I used to think Joe Rogan was cool, but then I realized that a guy who uncritically accepts deranged ramblings about pre-ice-age advanced societies destroyed by mass extinction events of which there is no evidence whatsoever probably can’t be trusted about their other opinions, either.
The rest of the IDW movement is just as vacuous.
Never seen that, at least on Fox News which provides a sometimes useful if dizzying dose of alternate reality.
On a related matter, “Librul” (spelling and pronunciation) is a construct of an annoying subset of liberals. It should stop.
The IDW crowd is full of people who aren’t any more intelligent or educated than the Fox News crowd, but who are very self-congratulatory about how much smarter than everyone else they are and how “bOtH sIdEs” are full of morons who aren’t worthy to lick their boots.
They’re the kind who calls themselves “classical liberals” while ranting about “cAnCeL cUlTuRe” (from the comfort of their huge and decidedly non-cancelled platforms) and “illiberalism”.
To the Fox News crowd, a Liberal is a horrible monster that wants to take your guns and force your daughter to marry a black guy. To the IDW crowd, “Liberal” is not a negative term, but they paint anyone who is actually Liberal as a crazed SJW hippy, while claiming that their own regressive and reactionary policies are REAL Liberalism.
IT’s come across my radar a lot lately. Stuff like this Economist article, but also our local idiots like DemonTree.
AIUI the name was a joke, but I’m not convinced it’s really a movement anyway. I’ve been reading Scott Alexander, Freddie de Boer, Lee Jussim and many others, and it’s really made me think and look at things differently. It’s just like when I was younger and read Dawkins etc and became an atheist.
But then I come back here and most people are just repeating the same old slogans and arguments that I could easily make myself, and going on about Fox news, and frequently proving the ‘IDW’ types correct with their behaviour.
Certainly his idiotic recent (and previous) remarks minimizing the dangers of COVID and misrepresenting the appropriate prevention and treatment measures for it, along with his refusal to state whether he himself got the vaccine, don’t inspire confidence about the general trustworthiness of his opinions.
I didn’t dismiss Joe Rogan and his guests offhand. I gave them (many, many) chances. But the simple fact is, anyone who takes Graham Hancock or Peter Deusberg seriously is a fool or a grifter.
The entire IDW moment consists of people with stupid ideas and no evidence to back them up (there was an advanced civilization 12,000 years ago and they’re responsible for all the megastructures! AIDS is not caused by HIV but by the “gay lifestyle”!); when their claims are rejected by the scientific community (because of that pesky “no evidence” thing) they go on Joe Rogan’s show to bitch and moan about cancel culture.
It’s absolutely ridiculous that anyone takes these people seriously. It’s also not very surprising that their audience is overwhelmingly young white guys who don’t like not being the center of the universe anymore, or how many of these claims have pretty dark undertones (of course this ancient civilization was light-skinned and led to European/Western civilization! Of course AIDS isn’t a real issue if it’s just caused by teh gayz and their “lifestyle”!)
Definitely - I rolled my eyes at the Graham Hancock episodes, and quit after the Duesberg - but if I hadn’t then COVID denial would have been the last straw.
Never heard anything even remotely like these. It’s more like ‘standardised testing works and here’s the scientific evidence’, and the other side is claiming ‘it’s all due to test prep’ or ‘it just reflects SES’ with no evidence whatsoever.
Ice Age Lunacy (one of many videos, Graham Hancock is a frequent guest of Joe Rogan)
The Peter Deusberg episode was removed from YouTube at some point (I originally watched it there) but it IS on Spotify. It’s a pretty cringey episode because Rogan brought someone on to debate Deusberg, but the guy he brought in is just some random dude, not an expert on medicine or AIDS or anything.
Yes, they also make those kinds of claims. Unfortunately they apply they same level of evidence-based critical thinking to the question of standardized testing as they do to the question of whether the Sphinx was built by an ancient global civilization, which is why I stopped taking them seriously years ago.
that’s cute. Jordan “Psychedelics let me understand the meaning of the universe” Peterson isn’t who I’d usually point to if I wanted to make the point that evidence-based arguments are important but YMMV.
Right of the bat, saying that “standardized testing works!” is completely non-sensical. If you want to say “standardized testing accurately measures X” then you are welcome to to so and make an evidence based argument that it is so.
And I’m not sure where you get the idea that people who oppose standardized testing due so with no evidence. In fact, evidence about the shortcomings of standardized testing is precisely why many are moving to lower the emphasis placed on such tests.
Actually I have a pretty good guess - that’s a claim that people like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson make all the time. And they present about as much evidence for this claim about the behavior of “the left” as they do for the age of the Sphinx or the root cause of AIDS.
And, in the case of Weinstein and Heying as well as Rogan, claiming that taking ivermectin is a better anti-COVID prophylaxis than the vaccine. (And unlike Rogan, the other two are outright claiming not to have been vaccinated because of “fears” and false allegations about the vaccine’s safety. Although apparently they have no such fears about self-dosing with an unapproved, non-recommended drug whose benefits are very uncertain and whose side effects can be very harmful.)
I’m not pointing to him. Never seen any of his stuff.
Because their reasons are generally that they dislike the results of such testing. Either for racial equity reasons, or what it shows about the state of education, or just that it doesn’t fit their worldview of everyone being equal. And in some cases, I suspect because it’s much harder to improve your kid’s score on the SAT than to help them get good grades and great extra curriculars and an amazing admissions essay so they can go to a top university.
And I rarely see anyone on that side present any evidence. You said this in a previous thread:
Also, admissions are based on performance on a test by middle schoolers. Sorry, but that has WAY more to do with your parents and how able and willing they are to invest time and money in tutoring you for this test than any kind of objective measure of ability or intelligence.
and gave no evidence for this implausible claim.
He’s like the poster child of the Intellectual Dark Web. It’s like if someone claims to have read a lot about Communism recently but then gets confused when someone mentions Marx.
Yes, that’s exaclty what the Joe Rogans and the Jordan Petersons will tell you the other side’s argument is. It isn’t TRUE but I’m not surprised you’re parroting it back.
That’s a funny joke right? It is not difficult to get a good SAT score using prep classes - certainly not more difficult than enrolling your child in a rigorous course of extracurricular activities or ensuring they get good grades.
Here, a link to a study that shows that SAT or ACT scores have fuck-all to do with performance in higher education while GPA does - or in other words, “how well you do in school” is a better predictor for “how well you will do in college” than “how well you did on this random test” is:
By the way, you’ve never actually TAKEN the SAT or ACT, have you?
You are an odious gaslighting piece of shit
Did you mean a different Intellectual Dark Web from the one we know and loathe?
I’m not claiming anything. That just seemed the best description of the things I have been reading. If you don’t think it fits then you are free to disregard it. 
Did you bother to look at your own link? The very first point of the summary:
From the report, HSGPA correlation with first year college GPA is .45, SAT .37, combined .48. It shows that GPA is a better predictor, but the idea that SAT scores have fuck all to do with performance in higher education is nonsense.
And furthermore, that’s not even what I asked for evidence of. You claimed performance on standardised tests has “WAY more to do with your parents and how able and willing they are to invest time and money in tutoring you for this test than any kind of objective measure of ability or intelligence.” That is what I want evidence for.
Instead you just repeat it:
If it’s not difficult then why do Ivy League universities have legacy admissions? Those parents should be able to buy their kids good enough scores. And if it’s so easy to get any kid a great SAT score, why has no one done it to help poor and/or minority students get in to higher education?
As I said, this claim is implausible on its face.
Nope. Have you?
Because they’re elitist institutions trying desperately to get the alumni parents’ donations?
I did, as I said in my post,
It isn’t super helpful because just getting a kid to have a higher SAT score won’t do much for that kid, since SAT scores don’t measure anything valuable and you aren’t making the kid any more prepared for college by doing so; and you certainly aren’t addressing the deep impacts that growing up in poverty had on a kid’s ability to do well at school; but I don’t know where you got the idea that “no one” has done this.
In the actual real world, lots of groups have done exactly that, like this one:
So, yeah, according to Gopalan, the SAT isn’t measuring anything inherent - in fact by prepping for it you can easily raise your score quickly, which you cannot do with for example GPA.
The link also talks about for-profit prep centers, which we all know about. Or the kids who get one on one tutoring at up to $200 per hour.
I live in America and I went to college, so yes, of course.
You know there is an enormous industry based on the idea that you can quickly raise SAT scores, right? Or maybe you don’t, since you don’t live in the US. But there are several centers in my town that claim to do exactly that (for pay, of course) and there’s a lot of evidence that practicing on SAT-like questions (even better if paired with some guidance and support) consistently raises SAT scores.
What Babale said. But also, Ivy league universities get many more completely qualified applicants than they can accept. Harvard could fill its entire freshman class with nothing but valedictorians, or with nothing but top SAT-score earners if they wanted to. They want to have a more diverse class than that (including kids who excel at sports, the arts, a particular subject, etc.) so they mostly just check to see if scores are “good enough” and look at other things. Including whether the kid’s parents went there, because yeah, alumni give more money if they feel the college cares about their connection to it.