Northrop Grumman Engineer Fired over participation in Charlottesville Rally

[King of Fists]

Outside of work? Yeah. It's ok, snowflake, you might even have some coworkers who disagree with you on things. Do you run to HR a lot?

Serious question, do you even have a job? I ask because you sound pretty clueless about the corporate workplace

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

I just have a hard time reconciling the belief that it is difficult to change IQ through environmental factors and the notion IQ points have gone up.
I don't have any desire to study the issue in depth enough to really get an answer but Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson make the argument that IQ is largely inherited. A proposition that is easily observable. All their critiques point to the Flynn effect as a rebuttal. I just have a hard time accepting that your average 19th century man was functionally retarded. That does not feel right. I know this isn't good evidence but have you ever seen civil war letters. Those were regular guys and they would write beautiful letters home. Letters that no one with a 70 iq could write. I just don't understand how they are gauging this.

This is a subject that merits a thread of it’s own, IMO.
IQ through time and cultures is pretty darn interesting and contentious.

 

[nostradumbass]

Serious question, do you even have a job? I ask because you sound pretty clueless about the corporate workplace

I run my own business and I don't can people over hurt feelings. Grow a sac.

 

[Tekk]

The left will go after your job, family, lively hood.

They are doing the same on Facebook, YouTube, at the IRS and FBI.

Liberals have gone real low

Yeah, its only liberals

As much as I hate your posts, I'd rather you spend your time posting nonsense instead of eyeballing little kids

 

[godking]

Don't you think it's silly firing someone based on their opposition to this month's trendy political opinion. The pendulum swings my friend, I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired for supporting open borders, or being a homosexual?

Be a little more tolerant.

Stop your pretense at being a a tolerant rational guy looking for debate.

And stop making stupid ASSumptions to make yourself look clever.

Tolerance for you means people agreeing with your viewpoints and having the status in society that YOU believe the should have.

But you will never directly and openly say so.

The fool that got fired at Northam got what he deserved.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

I run my own business and I don't can people over hurt feelings. Grow a sac.

Great. Try running a business with a toxic atmosphere amongst employees and see how that works out.
In an environment like Northrup Grumman, where engineers work as teams on large projects, having a known white supremacist working with Indian, Bengali, and Asian engineers would probably not work out too well.

 

[nac386]

Don't get me wrong, I think the Confederate flag is stupid, and do not understand it one bit. Especially a black person with one... but gosh darn it, it exists!


Pretty much. Next election cycle is going to be brutal. I was actually pretty entertained by 2016 elections as a whole, but that was only a small appetizer to what is to come. A lot of dumb people are becoming empowered and bolder since they are now able to network with hundreds of other dumb people on social media. No longer does someone need to be educated and/or experienced, well credentialed to be considered an authority/leader figure, it is whoever can generate the most likes and social media traffic.

edit: I should say that the next election cycle tho is going to be to much. I think I will have to block it all out. I thought one term with Trump would be enough for people to realize the errors of our country and their extremism. Unfortunately, it is only making people even more extreme. I think he is a lock in for 2020 at this point. Barring a legal complication.

He may win again just based on the fact that the Democrats have not come up with a decent candidate yet. Bernie Sanders is definitely not the guy to run this country, and honestly he might widen the divide even more by the time his 4-years is up. We need somebody relatively moderate, intelligent, logical, thoughtful, and articulate. That is really the only way to bring the divide closer again. Having somebody that will make sense to almost everybody and be dignified while doing it.

 

[Lord Coke]

He may win again just based on the fact that the Democrats have not come up with a decent candidate yet. Bernie Sanders is definitely not the guy to run this country, and honestly he might widen the divide even more by the time his 4-years is up. We need somebody relatively moderate, intelligent, logical, thoughtful, and articulate. That is really the only way to bring the divide closer again. Having somebody that will make sense to almost everybody and be dignified while doing it.

I guarantee you Trump will win if any of the current candidates are against him. When I hear that the DNC wants to run Kamala Harris I am wondering if the DNC is even trying to win 2020

 

[spamking]

I guarantee you Trump will win if any of the current candidates are against him. When I hear that the DNC wants to run Kamala Harris I am wondering if the DNC is even trying to win 2020

She plays to the lowest group of her supporters as bad if not worse than folks say Trump does . . .

 

[King of Fists]

I run my own business and I don't can people over hurt feelings. Grow a sac.

"Self employed" ok gotcha



So in other words, you're pretty clueless about the corporate world. It's pretty obvious, just wanted some confirmation on your end so thanks for that.

 

[panamaican]

I just have a hard time reconciling the belief that it is difficult to change IQ through environmental factors and the notion IQ points have gone up.
I don't have any desire to study the issue in depth enough to really get an answer but Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson make the argument that IQ is largely inherited. A proposition that is easily observable. All their critiques point to the Flynn effect as a rebuttal. I just have a hard time accepting that your average 19th century man was functionally retarded. That does not feel right. I know this isn't good evidence but have you ever seen civil war letters. Those were regular guys and they would write beautiful letters home. Letters that no one with a 70 iq could write. I just don't understand how they are gauging this.

The issue lies in what you're asking IQ exams to measure and how society gauges intelligence.

Flynn did a TedTalk where he gets into how society has come to increase it's valuation of abstract thought vs. practical thought. As societies increase their reliance on abstract thought and training in thinking in the abstract increased and started earlier, IQ scores increased. So the 19th century guy wasn't going to engage in hypothetical and abstract reasoning and when he did he wasn't particularly good at it because his society didn't have much value for it. His society valued his ability to deal with practical matters in the now. On a modern IQ exam which values the abstract, his scores would be low.

When combined with the concerns about culturally biased standardization from yesteryear, It just underscores the misapplication of IQ exams in most conversation. They're perfectly valid assessment tools for a fairly limited purpose and national population. They're not applicable to people and nations that the exams were not normed on. You can't speculate national IQ exams across countries, the same way you can't speculated exam scores across time.

We know that scores can be influenced by environment factors both positive and negative and that the negative influencers are more impactful that the positive. That's just scratching the surface of the research on IQ exams. They're a valid tool that have been frequently applied beyond their scope.

 

[nostradumbass]

Great. Try running a business with a toxic atmosphere amongst employees and see how that works out.
In an environment like Northrup Grumman, where engineers work as teams on large projects, having a known white supremacist working with Indian, Bengali, and Asian engineers would probably not work out too well.

Going to a rally does not make someone a "known white supremacist".

"Self employed" ok gotcha



So in other words, you're pretty clueless about the corporate world. It's pretty obvious, just wanted some confirmation on your end so thanks for that.

I employ myself and several other people. lol at you thinking everyone must either have some shitty corporate office job or be unemployed. Have fun at the company softball game, where you're guaranteed everyone likes and agrees with you.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

He may win again just based on the fact that the Democrats have not come up with a decent candidate yet. Bernie Sanders is definitely not the guy to run this country, and honestly he might widen the divide even more by the time his 4-years is up. We need somebody relatively moderate, intelligent, logical, thoughtful, and articulate. That is really the only way to bring the divide closer again. Having somebody that will make sense to almost everybody and be dignified while doing it.

I don't think it matters the politician at this point. Even just with this immigration stuff currently, these remove ICE protests and people asking for open boarders are going to push even more moderates away from the left.

People have been in protest mode, with it only increasing since like the Occupy movement. Which spawned into additional movements, which was fueled by the elections, and has Trump winning was like gasoline fire to the left, which in turn has fanned the flames on the right.

The right already got what they want, but they keep having rallies and shit to counteract all these anti-trump, BLM, end ICE rallies, etc. All of these people really need to step back. It is beyond embarrassing for the country. I was hoping that with Trump winning, the left would shape up and nominate literally anyone besides Hillary Clinton. But instead they are going full retard.

I think they are making the mistake of thinking that Trump has embarrassed himself enough and won't have a chance with any candidate that seems sensible... but they are wrong. It feels like they are not even trying to prepare.

 

[Lord Coke]

The issue lies in what you're asking IQ exams to measure and how society gauges intelligence.

Flynn did a TedTalk where he gets into how society has come to increase it's valuation of abstract thought vs. practical thought. As societies increase their reliance on abstract thought and training in thinking in the abstract increased and started earlier, IQ scores increased. So the 19th century guy wasn't going to engage in hypothetical and abstract reasoning and when he did he wasn't particularly good at it because his society didn't have much value for it. His society valued his ability to deal with practical matters in the now. On a modern IQ exam which values the abstract, his scores would be low.

When combined with the concerns about culturally biased standardization from yesteryear, It just underscores the misapplication of IQ exams in most conversation. They're perfectly valid assessment tools for a fairly limited purpose and national population. They're not applicable to people and nations that the exams were not normed on. You can't speculate national IQ exams across countries, the same way you can't speculated exam scores across time.

We know that scores can be influenced by environment factors both positive and negative and that the negative influencers are more impactful that the positive. That's just scratching the surface of the research on IQ exams. They're a valid tool that have been frequently applied beyond their scope.

That makes sense but aren't IQ tests supposed to be done at a young age for that very reason? The only legit IQ test I have ever had was when I was in 1st grade as did everyone at my school. NowI could train myself to do better on a IQ test just like the SATs GREs and LSAT.
How is culture going to impact 6 year olds? Also as a more practical matter how often was IQ testing being done around the turn of the century? How were they getting the mean?

 

[King of Fists]

I employ myself and several other people. lol at you thinking everyone must either have some shitty corporate office job or be unemployed. Have fun at the company softball game, where you're guaranteed everyone likes and agrees with you.

"Good luck with that boring life of fitting in with society and following the rules!"

Lol k thanks I guess

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

HWe mmc

Going to a rally does not make someone a "known white supremacist".
.

True, but I very much doubt this young man attended out of mere curiosity and was simply swatting a fly off the black guy. Occam’s razor applies. If you are seen at a rally such as this, arms raised triumphantly, it doesn’t leave much gray area.

 

[emefer]

Doland will make home leader of space force.

 

[panamaican]

That makes sense but aren't IQ tests supposed to be done at a young age for that very reason? The only legit IQ test I have ever had was when I was in 1st grade as did everyone at my school. NowI could train myself to do better on a IQ test just like the SATs GREs and LSAT.
How is culture going to impact 6 year olds? Also as a more practical matter how often was IQ testing being done around the turn of the century? How were they getting the mean?

I'll give you a personal example. I had my kid take an IQ exam at 3.5 y.o. for access to the prep school pre-k program. He wasn't in preschool at the time so I didn't have preschool teacher recommendations (which seems insane as I type it). He wasn't in preschool because they had to teach to the average kid and it was boring my child to tears.

On the language section, he tested in the 99th% but here's an example of something that he got wrong. He's supposed to identify a pictured item. The item in the picture is a violin, my son said "guitar". To a relatively young child, the picture of a guitar can easily resemble the picture of a guitar and if the child has more experience with one instrument over the other he'll select the one he's familiar with. Well, depending on your community, some kids might not have ever seen a violin.

Another example is the days of the week. My son didn't know them because we hadn't taught him yet. He was doing addition, subtraction, and reading at a 1st grade level at 3, we weren't worried about if he'd ever learn the days of the week, lol. But the IQ exam asked him to name them. He got that wrong. In the report, the tester pointed out that his IQ score, while still in the 99th% percentile, could have been higher if he'd known some of those things. Now for my kid, the difference between the 99.X% and the 99.Y is meaningless in terms of how he's going to be perceived.

But those aren't raw intelligence questions, they're acquired knowledge questions. In a culture, where the acquired knowledge at the tested age is low - such as in poor communities with bad schools - then those kids will test lower because of that.

There's another section on putting together blocks to match an abstract image. Well, in my house, we have plenty of Legos, puzzles, blocks, etc. These are things that align with the IQ exam but some kids might not have the same amount of exposure and so the block portion of the IQ exam is the first time they're exposed to the concept. THey're going to score lower than kids with greater exposure/experience.

It's an interesting conversation because the exam tests both pure reasoning and acquired knowledge. And there are so many places in society where we can't be sure that kids are being exposed to the foundational skills that the IQ exam is testing. They'll get lower IQ scores but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're unintelligent.

And they weren't doing much in the way of IQ exams at the turn of the century, not the way you're thinking about it. And even then, the scores were ratio scores, not percentile scores. The ratio score simply took your mental age divided by your chronological age. So an IQ of 150 equated to a 6 year old with the mental ability of a 9 year old ( 9/6 = 1.5. 1.5x100 = 150 IQ). And an IQ of 80 meant a 10 year old with the mental ability of a 8 year old (8/10 = .8. 0.8 x 100 = 80 IQ). Well, given the education standards of the time - how easy is it for a 10 year old to have only acquired the education of an 8 year old before leaving school. We switched to rarity scores precisely to minimize that impact. So now an IQ of 150 means that that you score better than 99.9% of other people in your age taking the same exam. But that means that an IQ of 70 means that something like 99% of the population would have outperformed you, there's nothing strange with 95% of the modern population in the U.S. knowing more than some dude from the 1800s.

So how do you responsibly speculate that backwards over multiple generations? You really can't. And how do you speculate test scores in countries with extremely different education standards? Again you can't. And how do you compare scores in communities where the parents are paying for nannies to individually treat and teach their kids to kids in communities where the local daycare barely teaches the basics? You can't.

 

[nac386]

I don't think it matters the politician at this point. Even just with this immigration stuff currently, these remove ICE protests and people asking for open boarders are going to push even more moderates away from the left.

People have been in protest mode, with it only increasing since like the Occupy movement. Which spawned into additional movements, which was fueled by the elections, and has Trump winning was like gasoline fire to the left, which in turn has fanned the flames on the right.

The right already got what they want, but they keep having rallies and shit to counteract all these anti-trump, BLM, end ICE rallies, etc. All of these people really need to step back. It is beyond embarrassing for the country. I was hoping that with Trump winning, the left would shape up and nominate literally anyone besides Hillary Clinton. But instead they are going full retard.

I don't think moderates are being pulled too hard in any direction. I think you are right that some of the nonsense from the far left has pushed some moderates away. But Trump's idiotic rhetoric and all those whacky racist right-wing organizations are doing plenty to push moderates away from the right as well. I'm a moderate who's favorite Presidential candidate this year was a Republican. So I am the guy we are talking about right now. I am absolutely not interested in Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, somebody new is going to have to come along.

I think they are making the mistake of thinking that Trump has embarrassed himself enough and won't have a chance with any candidate that seems sensible... but they are wrong. It feels like they are not even trying to prepare.

That would be a bad approach, and they'd definitely lose. I'm not sure what their plan is, or if they even have one. A while back John Kasich was floating the idea of running in 2020 with a Democrat VP, as a joint party ticket. That might be what we need. I'm so tired of both of the political parties, I can't name a single active politician beyond the state level that I respect.

 

[Lord Coke]

I'll give you a personal example. I had my kid take an IQ exam at 3.5 y.o. for access to the prep school pre-k program. He wasn't in preschool at the time so I didn't have preschool teacher recommendations (which seems insane as I type it). He wasn't in preschool because they had to teach to the average kid and it was boring my child to tears.

On the language section, he tested in the 99th% but here's an example of something that he got wrong. He's supposed to identify a pictured item. The item in the picture is a violin, my son said "guitar". To a relatively young child, the picture of a guitar can easily resemble the picture of a guitar and if the child has more experience with one instrument over the other he'll select the one he's familiar with. Well, depending on your community, some kids might not have ever seen a violin.

Another example is the days of the week. My son didn't know them because we hadn't taught him yet. He was doing addition, subtraction, and reading at a 1st grade level at 3, we weren't worried about if he'd ever learn the days of the week, lol. But the IQ exam asked him to name them. He got that wrong. In the report, the tester pointed out that his IQ score, while still in the 99th% percentile, could have been higher if he'd known some of those things. Now for my kid, the difference between the 99.X% and the 99.Y is meaningless in terms of how he's going to be perceived.

But those aren't raw intelligence questions, they're acquired knowledge questions. In a culture, where the acquired knowledge at the tested age is low - such as in poor communities with bad schools - then those kids will test lower because of that.

There's another section on putting together blocks to match an abstract image. Well, in my house, we have plenty of Legos, puzzles, blocks, etc. These are things that align with the IQ exam but some kids might not have the same amount of exposure and so the block portion of the IQ exam is the first time they're exposed to the concept. THey're going to score lower than kids with greater exposure/experience.

It's an interesting conversation because the exam tests both pure reasoning and acquired knowledge. And there are so many places in society where we can't be sure that kids are being exposed to the foundational skills that the IQ exam is testing. They'll get lower IQ scores but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're unintelligent.

And they weren't doing much in the way of IQ exams at the turn of the century, not the way you're thinking about it. And even then, the scores were ratio scores, not percentile scores. The ratio score simply took your mental age divided by your chronological age. So an IQ of 150 equated to a 6 year old with the mental ability of a 9 year old ( 9/6 = 1.5. 1.5x100 = 150 IQ). And an IQ of 80 meant a 10 year old with the mental ability of a 8 year old (8/10 = .8. 0.8 x 100 = 80 IQ). Well, given the education standards of the time - how easy is it for a 10 year old to have only acquired the education of an 8 year old before leaving school. We switched to rarity scores precisely to minimize that impact. So now an IQ of 150 means that that you score better than 99.9% of other people in your age taking the same exam. But that means that an IQ of 70 means that something like 99% of the population would have outperformed you, there's nothing strange with 95% of the modern population in the U.S. knowing more than some dude from the 1800s.

So how do you responsibly speculate that backwards over multiple generations? You really can't. And how do you speculate test scores in countries with extremely different education standards? Again you can't. And how do you compare scores in communities where the parents are paying for nannies to individually treat and teach their kids to kids in communities where the local daycare barely teaches the basics? You can't.

Good response. And yes the preschool letters of rec do sound insane.