Quote from: deadDMwalking;1099832It is apparent that two different people can have different levels of intelligence; there are some people with a physical disability that inhibits their ability to learn and retain skills.  It is also true that IQ tests have a history of perpetuating discrimination when instead they more accurately reflect disadvantage rather than true forms of intelligence.  Someone who scored poorly on an IQ test due to unfamiliarity with a specific culture or language may end up proving they are 'genius'.  

D&D 3.x does a good job of modeling other forms of intelligence.  Social Intelligence is a different stat; most 'learning' is skill based.  Having a skill that represents that some people learn faster than others (ie, get more skills) is fine if it costs somewhere else.

I agree that Intelligence penalties can be applied unnecessarily and often don't make sense.  

It is mathematically true that you can replace all penalties with bonuses combined with no adjustment (ie, instead of +2/-2 you could have 1 stat with +4, 4 with +2, and 1 with +0).  That's unnecessarily confusing, but in our heartbreaker we opt to give a +2/+2 with no penalties; some people are 'better' at certain attributes without working as hard, but nobody 'loses points' for investing in a skill that they want.  You can play a smart orc if you like; you'll probably still be stronger than average (at least for wizards) but you can be just as smart.  We have not applied a bonus to Intelligence for any race; I can't say we never would, but we wouldn't do it lightly.

The important thing for me is that in a role-playing game, you can be anything you want to be.  Playing a character that spots the underlying patterns and solves major problems (like Sherlock Holmes) is attractive to some people, just like playing a character that is rich or handsome or powerful might be.  Letting players opt into having 'smart characters' is a good thing.  Actually using IQ or trying to map Intelligence to a specific IQ value is not.

I figured you'd be in agreement with the crazy that wrote that garbage. And to justify it you cite realworld stuff (without evidence).

How come only "non-racists" think standardized tests are racist?

Don't you guys see how you're saying we poor non-whites can't compete in a level playing field with whitey?

Do you also believe liberty allows the white, straight, male (puagh!) to dominate?

Kill all the people that wear glasses.

Skills vs. Attributes does a decent (but often fiddly) job of differentiating various types of intelligence and knowledge. But now you're on the Palladium train where the game can have hundreds of skills and balancing their value becomes a mess.

Personally, I prefer to assume certain levels of knowledge based on backgrounds. AKA, the island barbarian knows more about tribal life on the islands than the sage from the city.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1099838How come only "non-racists" think standardized tests are racist?

I have plenty of concerns about standardized tests (which are a different animal than IQ tests), but the criticism that standardized testing in schools is racist is appalling, but its a regular criticism barfed up whenever predominantly poor non-white majority schools do poorly on statewide exams.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1099838Don't you guys see how you're saying we poor non-whites can't compete in a level playing field with whitey?

The bigotry of low expectations is unfortunately popular in academic and political circles.

"Rich, educated people will do better on standardized IQ tests than poor, uneducated people. News at 11."

Who does Google hire more of to do their programming?

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1099844Who does Google hire more of to do their programming?

People on H1B visas so they can pay them half the salary of a US citizen?

I didn't read past the first couple of lines of the blog post. The only argument I ever see against the concept of G is that it's somehow "discriminatory" or my favorite "IQ tests are like culturally biased man". Which completely ignores that a great deal work over the past decades has gone in to eliminating cultural artifacts from IQ tests, and several have been developed that can be taken by someone who is totally illiterate (Raven's Progressive Matrices comes to mind). Leftist says stupid shit, in other news water wet and sky blue, news at 10.

Quote from: Arkansan;1099848Leftist says stupid shit, in other news water wet and sky blue, news at 10.

Excuse me, but we on the right say stupid shit, too. I know my rights! You will prise my silly bullshit from my cold dead hands! It's right next to the dice.

Silly people can scream into the void, too! That's what soapboxes and blogs were made for, right?

Quote from: Shasarak;1099796I wonder how well people that don't believe in Iq tests do when they take Iq tests?  Probably not well.

I don't think that IQ Tests are worthwhile and won't take them. For me, all they measure is the ability to do IQ Tests.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1099840Kill all the people that wear glasses.

What about those who just take off their glasses? Sneaky buggers, they are.

Just read the article and I disagree with almost everything in it, except the bit about IQ Tests.

Personally, I think that general Intelligence and Specific Intelligence both have their place. Some people are quicker to pick things up, learn things and understand some things, that is roughly what General Intelligence is. However, some people are naturally gifted at certain things and become very skilled at those things very quickly and very easily, for me that is Specific Intelligence.

A skill-based system allows PCs to become very skilled at certain tasks quite easily. Having the INT characteristic is useful, but not overly so. For games such as D&D, some classes have a minimum INT, for the simple reason that a thick-as-pigshit PC isn't going to be a good Wizard, as Wizards are good at learning and studying. I've got no real problem with that, although I prefer something like RQ, where you can overcome your thick-as-pigshitness to learn skills, but some things might still be a disadvantage - RQ3 Sorcery uses Free INT, for example, which is based on INT and determines how much you can manipulate spells, so a thick-as-pigshit PC won't have a high Free INT.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1099840Kill all the people that wear glasses.

Turku Manifesto: Players who wear glasses are not allowed to play. (A 'euro/nordicLARP' manifesto. But it presents itself as representing RPGs too.)

Quote from: Arkansan;1099848in other news water wet and sky blue, news at 10.

I figure eventually one of these sociopaths will declare that the sky being blue is a sign of the Patriarchy and the night being black is racist.

These fruitcakes despise IQ tests because they'd be found out to be sub-morons. And this cult of the sub-moron steadily continues to infest gaming on increasingly all levels.

The latest article on D&D Beyond goes further and claims all race ability modifiers are racist:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/563-reimagining-racial-ability-scores

He doesn't even seem to grasp the (not that subtle) mathematics that if you inflate abilities for everyone then not getting a bonus is the same as getting a penalty.

QuoteThis is to say nothing of the fact that linking ability score penalties (which are thankfully absent from the fifth edition Player's Handbook, at least) to your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology.

He cites this article to back his nonsense:
https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/1/13/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-i-a-species-built-for-racial-terror

Which is also twaddle.

Racism has nothing to do with the different abilities of a race. The races are just a way to inject a bit of variety into the fantasy world. He's not even internally consistent since he's perfectly happy for races to have their iconic special senses like dark vision, or resistances like poison or charm.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1099845People on H1B visas so they can pay them half the salary of a US citizen?

Try one-third. And get one-tenth the productive output. But hey, gotta help their own people ahead of others.