Essex blonde, 16, has Einstein IQ

Technically true but i personally tend to go by salary and how much a house is worth (to me somebody who is working class probably doesn't own their own home) and so by that she is decidedly middle class.

You are quite obviously not familiar with Thatcher's right to buy scheme?
But I agree, she lives in a middle class house and her mum is a deputy head (right?) so you cant say she lives a working class lifestyle.

Reply 121

Fullofsurprises

OP

20

Original post by amineamine2

You are quite obviously not familiar with Thatcher's right to buy scheme?
But I agree, she lives in a middle class house and her mum is a deputy head (right?) so you cant say she lives a working class lifestyle.

I honestly don't think we can judge that from the available information. There are lots of teachers, including Deputy Heads, who might consider themselves working class. We can't say.

Reply 122

amineamine2

14

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I honestly don't think we can judge that from the available information. There are lots of teachers, including Deputy Heads, who might consider themselves working class. We can't say.

Tbh if you know the parents occupation, and the price of their house, im sure a fairly accurate conclusion can be reached. Nevertheless, I think the whole class system is outdated, and it's fairly hard to put someone in a class. As you said, many teachers consider themselves working class. But, would a cab driver or mine worker consider himself middle class if his parents were, let's say, teachers? I doubt it. Or take the 'head of household' assumption. If the girl in question had been raised by her mum only, would she still be classed as working class 'cause of her father's occupation? I dont think so.

Reply 123

Fullofsurprises

OP

20

Original post by amineamine2

Tbh if you know the parents occupation, and the price of their house, im sure a fairly accurate conclusion can be reached. Nevertheless, I think the whole class system is outdated, and it's fairly hard to put someone in a class. As you said, many teachers consider themselves working class. But, would a cab driver or mine worker consider himself middle class if his parents were, let's say, teachers? I doubt it. Or take the 'head of household' assumption. If the girl in question had been raised by her mum only, would she still be classed as working class 'cause of her father's occupation? I dont think so.

I think you're right on all those points, but they don't detract from the general issue that we as outside observers can't automatically dump them into a particular class "bucket". There may well be grounds to assume they have some middle-classness but they may not share that identity.

Reply 124

Rakas21

21

Original post by amineamine2

You are quite obviously not familiar with Thatcher's right to buy scheme?
But I agree, she lives in a middle class house and her mum is a deputy head (right?) so you cant say she lives a working class lifestyle.

Of course but over time this allows people to transcend to the middle classes.

Reply 125

amineamine2

14

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I think you're right on all those points, but they don't detract from the general issue that we as outside observers can't automatically dump them into a particular class "bucket". There may well be grounds to assume they have some middle-classness but they may not share that identity.

Well that's my whole point. It's hard to place someone in a social class.
Ofc, they may adopt any identity they wish. I guess the most accurate way of putting someone in a class ''bucket'', as you call it, is by acknowledging the person's own identity, but to some extent only. I won't be considered upper-class even if I identified as one, as my dad does not possess a hereditary title, unfortunately.

Anyways, middle class or working class, I hope she contributes well to humanity.

Reply 126

Dukeofwembley

Original post by M1011

10-20 people in every year group? You mean like a school year group? :confused:

No, it's not. It's just a metric used to measure a certain type of ability. Many of the presumptions around it may be BS, such as high IQ equates to amazing performance for example, but that doesn't make IQ itself any less reliable?

Agreed.

theres like 700,000 people every year

Reply 127

Fullofsurprises

OP

20

Original post by amineamine2

I won't be considered upper-class even if I identified as one, as my dad does not possess a hereditary title, unfortunately.

You can be above the middle class without having a hereditary title.

Reply 128

Simran Mars Foster

12

She likes Towie and she has and IQ of 161 . :lolwut:

Reply 129

Hal.E.Lujah

19

That was the worst article I've ever read. My god. So many inaccuracies.

Reply 130

M1011

19

Original post by Dukeofwembley

theres like 700,000 people every year

Erm, that didn't answer the question. Are you saying 10-20 in each year group in each school?

700,000 each year? Of what, everyone on the planet? Where is this info coming from? If you're implying an IQ of 160 is common, you're mistaken.

Reply 131

Fullofsurprises

OP

20

Original post by Simran Mars Foster

She likes Towie and she has and IQ of 161 . :lolwut:

I did wonder if the journo writing the story just put her up to that bit, kind of "oh go on, just say you like Towie, it makes the story".

Reply 132

Dukeofwembley

Original post by M1011

Erm, that didn't answer the question. Are you saying 10-20 in each year group in each school?

700,000 each year? Of what, everyone on the planet? Where is this info coming from? If you're implying an IQ of 160 is common, you're mistaken.

no im saying there are 700000 people of single age ie 16, i sw this figure as an average, although i think it is too low for the uk

Reply 133

amineamine2

14

Original post by Fullofsurprises

You can be above the middle class without having a hereditary title.

I didn't say you can't, I said I can't be upper-class without a hereditary title. In the UK, at least. You can be upper-middle class without a hereditary title. But to be upper-class you'll have to have the title. Even if you own a £10 million mansion, no title=no upper-class status.

Reply 134

M1011

19

Original post by Dukeofwembley

no im saying there are 700000 people of single age ie 16, i sw this figure as an average, although i think it is too low for the uk

You're not making yourself very clear here!

So are you saying that there are 700,000 16 year olds, and of those you expect there to be 10-20 who have an IQ of 160+?

Reply 135

hslakaal

17

Where the heck is my frontpage headline for my IQ :angry:

Reply 136

bssjonny

12

I like how it implies that if you are from Essex, you are unlikely to score well in an IQ test. Thanks a lot TOWIE, for making us all look like morons. :frown:

Reply 137

Fullofsurprises

OP

20

Original post by amineamine2

I didn't say you can't, I said I can't be upper-class without a hereditary title. In the UK, at least. You can be upper-middle class without a hereditary title. But to be upper-class you'll have to have the title. Even if you own a £10 million mansion, no title=no upper-class status.

No, the upper-middle class is clearly part of the middle class. (Doctors, lawyers, consultants, etc.) Your analysis is patently incorrect because the economic interests of a Richard Branson, who has no title, are radically different to those of the accountants and lawyers who slave away for his empire.

It's a common misconception that the upper class only consists of titled people, it doesn't. It is those people who from family wealth or property have escaped from the need to work, plus the owners and controllers of large capital and those who control the largest businesses. It still also includes the landed gentry to whom you refer, but is in no way exclusive to them.

Reply 138

Dukeofwembley

Original post by M1011

You're not making yourself very clear here!

So are you saying that there are 700,000 16 year olds, and of those you expect there to be 10-20 who have an IQ of 160+?