D&D 5E Don't play "stupid" characters. It is ableist.

[Scott Christian]

IQ is a load of nonsense.

You might as well be in here telling us all about how the shape of our skulls determines our cognitive traits.

First, I am not having an IQ debate. This thread brought it up - not me.

Second, IQ can be a load of crap. 100% correct. It is also the greatest direct measurement we have as to how someone will perform when learning higher level math and reading. Is it wrong sometimes? Sure. But when something has above a 70% predictability rate, we call that pretty good.

No one said IQ is the be all, end all. No one said it determines a person's fate. But, when you meet talk in depth with someone who has a 70 IQ, you know it. When you talk with someone with a 130 IQ, you know it. But that is not what this is about. I gave reasons your mom learned it later, rather than earlier. Take is as you will, especially since you are the one that brought it up.

 

[Scott Christian]

Indeed. It's much more likely that she had a teacher who didn't do a good job teaching her, or who even discouraged her because "girls don't need math."

Possibly. But the odd circumstance of her having the same math teacher for 10 years of school seems unlikely.

 

[Faolyn]

Possibly. But the odd circumstance of her having the same math teacher for 10 years of school seems unlikely.

I had many math teachers throughout grade school who did a bad job teaching me, primarily because of my (undiagnosed at the time) disabilities. Plus I had teachers who thought the best way to teach math was to assign 100 questions a night for homework instead of just 50, and then make fun of me, in front of the other students, when I asked for help.

In short, there are a lot of bad teachers.

 

[ad_hoc]

First, I am not having an IQ debate. This thread brought it up - not me.

Second, IQ can be a load of crap. 100% correct. It is also the greatest direct measurement we have as to how someone will perform when learning higher level math and reading. Is it wrong sometimes? Sure. But when something has above a 70% predictability rate, we call that pretty good.

No one said IQ is the be all, end all. No one said it determines a person's fate. But, when you meet talk in depth with someone who has a 70 IQ, you know it. When you talk with someone with a 130 IQ, you know it. But that is not what this is about. I gave reasons your mom learned it later, rather than earlier. Take is as you will, especially since you are the one that brought it up.

You say you're not having the debate but then list arguments for it.

The other reasons why my mother did better in math that you suggested is exactly the point. She would have been labelled as stupid in high school and yet in college suddenly she was smart.

How can this be if intelligence is innate?

Well you're now changing things to say she was always smart. Was she though? What we call intelligence is a social construct. At the time in high school she wasn't smart because our culture says she wasn't. She would still likely be considered stupid later on if a person was not aware of her college accomplishments because she lacks interest in those cognitive tasks or tests.

"Intelligence tests are controversial in part because little consensus exists as to what is meant by intelligence (Sternberg, 2004)."

"Another important criticism of intelligence tests is that they are biased in favour of middle and upper-class, educated, European North Americans because these people have more familiarity with the kinds of reasoning that are assessed on the intelligence tests (Sternberg, 2004)."

Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59, 325-338.

 

[Argyle King]

Too often, intelligence is synonymous with education.

I do not believe the two things to be equivalent.

In terms of whatever "IQ" is said to be from tests, I would agree that it's a too-vague concept to be useful in any context which asks for nuance.

That's probably why newer tests measure different types of "IQ" and break it down into subcategories.

There are still flaws with it, but what the US military calls the ASVAB is likely a better-designed test to measure ability (in a multitude of areas) than a lot of old IQ tests.

How any of that relates to what D&D calls intelligence is probably roughly as accurate as the D&D weapon categories are when compared to real life.

Even so, I don't think it's an absurd notion to suggest that D&D ability scores have some amount of meaning.

There is a functional difference when contrasting different strength scores. Is the same not true of other ability scores?

Why or why not?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is the whole “if you let a Nazi stay in your bar, it will become a Nazi bar” phenomenon.

Just had to help a friend deal with that recently. First time in over 10 years he’s had to deal with it. The comments that preceded him asking for backup were directly relevant to this thread.

 

[Charlaquin]

Too often, intelligence is synonymous with education.

I do not believe the two things to be equivalent.

In terms of whatever "IQ" is said to be from tests, I would agree that it's a too-vague concept to be useful in any context which asks for nuance.

That's probably why newer tests measure different types of "IQ" and break it down into subcategories.

There are still flaws with it, but what the US military calls the ASVAB is likely a better-designed test to measure ability (in a multitude of areas) than a lot of old IQ tests.

How any of that relates to what D&D calls intelligence is probably roughly as accurate as the D&D weapon categories are when compared to real life.

Even so, I don't think it's an absurd notion to suggest that D&D ability scores have some amount of meaning.

There is a functional difference when contrasting different strength scores. Is the same not true of other ability scores?

Why or why not?

There’s a functional difference in all ability scores.

It’s about a 5% chance of success on certain tasks per 2 points.

 

[Argyle King]

There’s a functional difference in all ability scores.

It’s about a 5% chance of success on certain tasks per 2 points.

That's true.

Do you feel that character abilities should be handled in more of a math-centric way? (Like a board game or maybe old-school competitive play?)

 

[Charlaquin]

That's true.

Do you feel that character abilities should be handled in more of a math-centric way? (Like a board game or maybe old-school competitive play?)

I do. I think the actual functions of the abilities are so far removed from anything resembling reality that any attempt at “roleplaying your stats” is ultimately futile, and in some cases (like the case under discussion) problematic to try. Better to accept them as what they are - abstract game stats that represent no more and no less than the character’s aptitude at the specific tasks they contribute to. And if I understand what you mean by “old-school competitive play” correctly (it’s also often referred to as “skilled play,”) then I am definitely a fan of and advocate for it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I do. I think the actual functions of the abilities are so far removed from anything resembling reality that any attempt at “roleplaying your stats” is ultimately futile, and in some cases (like the case under discussion) problematic to try. Better to accept them as what they are - abstract game stats that represent no more and no less than the character’s aptitude at the specific tasks they contribute to. And if I understand what you mean by “old-school competitive play” correctly (it’s also often referred to as “skilled play,”) then I am definitely a fan of and advocate for it.

I have to say that to me this is highly unsatisfying approach. If abilities don't actually represent anything, then they shouldn't exist.