Their recidivism is probably successful which probably messes with the results
I'd be a lot more believing of this study if it included parent interviews which it sounds like it does not have
see I wouldn't trust anything in regards to parents speaking about their children.
I mean interviewing them to confirm their mental status. It sounds like they passed all responsibility of the study to the kids
I don't have the requisite skills to actually analyze anything (posted as a race infographic) but I'll posit that if it wasn't entirely correct there would be zero way the University of Oxford would allow it to be published given the implications.
1 Like
The Guy Who Tells You Your Studies Are Modern Day Phrenology.
agree with that for sure
we will look back at this era of Drs overprescribing kids poorly
12 year olds should be on ssris as a last resort, not just something to try
also love how they almost never mention how horrible it is to try to stop taking these meds when selling you on it
1 Like
they're like those people we talked about before
they cant just have the psyche like "i want to help" or "i know what this looks like" a real quality therapist is probably better than that and thats why they're not easy to find
1 Like
&if you have trust issues or deep vulnerabilities youre not ready to address you can find a quality therapist and still think tehyre a scam and its not worth it
1 Like
if anything im a proponent for this because i know so many people with legitimately like easy to diagnose and treatable mental issues who never go to a therapist because "it seems useless" or "didnt work for me" ...when most of these people wont admit that they weren't ready to take the leap to open up and admit mental dysfunction in the first place
1 Like
I encourage you to work with therapists and psychologists, we have more in-depth and intelligent conversations about people’s mental health on NAdota and we’re ■■■■■■■■
They’re like armchair psychologists but actually psychologists and worse
2 Likes
Regardless of whether or not it's true that compassion requires intelligence, this is quite a reach. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are not particularly "compassionate" or "empathetic" - I think it's quite obvious to anyone with a "high IQ" that they have ulterior motives.
Again a majority aren't that good at their jobs and the stuff you sit in through is likely pretty basic as well
I agree that most situations people find themselves in aren't so difficult to simulate mentally that it requires a high intellect to be an empathetic person. If one is forced to experience hardship I think it's fairly shocking how fast one can learn "the other side of the story". I also don't think it makes a great deal of sense for an intelligent person to be empathetic without some motivator. Therefore most people are conditionally empathetic, usually to something closely aligned to their own hardships/struggles.
2 Likes
You forgot the part where 5 members or so scored 110, I think your self assortment theory is mildly accurate, but there's no need to force every peg into the same hole here.
1 Like
notjones' argument is that there is an IQ threshold where under, you can no longer form thoughts that a higher IQ person can. "Too high IQ for you to Understand" etc etc... I don't think it's entirely untrue, but maybe that threshold is closer to 90 or 80, than 110 (as he posited above).
He's just wording himself in a very sensationalist and exaggerated manner, which is his style (as well as mine I suppose).
The armed forces won't take people at 85~; it's likely that "weak free will" comes into being at some spiritual symmetry: 115.
It's almost impossible to converse with PlasmaNation and he is 110.
I think he just got lucky his 2nd time around. His original test was 88 which, adjusting for the online test buffer makes him around 70.
That being said, I believe my Mother told me that she was tested at 80 IQ during university - she is definitely a compassionate and free-willed person.