IQ differences and racism

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MikeH
1. We can't define intelligence.

2. If we can't define it we can't measure it.

I don't know that you can define intelligence but (forget racial crap) I bet you know people that are "brighter " than other people. You know . . . you have two friends and if you teach them something that neither knew, whether math or a convoluted piece of logical reasoning, you know that Friend "A" will "get it" first and understand it better. I don't think that anyone can deny this.

Measurement . . . I don't like most IQ tests I have seen. I think they tend to measure how well you can take a standardized test.

Race-- 2 points

1. Assess individuals on their own merits and leave race out of things IMHO

2. I do find it curious that people get so uptight about the topic. I might think a viewpoint is full of crap but I don't see why it seems that people are afraid to deal with some objective facts. The tendency of certain racial groups to be over or under represented among elite athletes in various sports seems to be an interesting question. Is it genetics, culture, economic opportunity? IMHO science should not steer away from the tough questions just because it makes people uncomfortable.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Flubber

science should not steer away from the tough questions just because it makes people uncomfortable.

Another problem is that this area tends to attract two types of researcher, either racists trying to prove the white man is more intelligent or the PC mob just as determined to prove that all races are exactly the same.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by reds4ever


Another problem is that this area tends to attract two types of researcher, either racists trying to prove the white man is more intelligent or the PC mob just as determined to prove that all races are exactly the same.

UNfortunately you are likely correct although I always hold out hope that their are scientists that still try to discover things and not try to prove some preconceived notion

WE understand so very little how the brain works I find it difficult to believe that anyone can be making sweeping and definitive statements about intelligence

[Az]

Of course, if a test of intelliegnce was made by say a Aborigene, he would sure as hell not ask about square roots, but how to get roots out of the gorund and cook them so you won;t die.

Yeah, but that's a different test for a completely different thing. Intelligence is not about skills, be those survival skills or technological skills of the white devil modern human, but prowess in raw processing of sensory data, and general human interaction devoid of technological context.

To sum it up, your claim would be more fair if IQ tests asked the use of an electronic spreadsheet, and rapid typing.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
Who writes the test matters, even if you don't like it.

Any article that says that one can;t trust Gould cause he was a "practicing Marxists", or makes a claim as stupid as "stupid people are always more violent" is not worth much arguement.

Actually, I believe he said that Gould was dishonest in his analysis of the facts and used the crap about Marxism as a label for his bias, and said only that stupidity correlates with bad behavior, not that idiots are "always more violent." I don't know that the guy is right, but you shouldn't use strawmen on him.

With that said, I'm aware that there are cultural biases in IQ tests; my mother once showed me a test that very accurately measures the intelligence of southern Blacks who were raised in the sixties, but labels whites retarded. And a lack of familiarity with the dominant culture mislabelled as "stupidity" could very well be what any test the author refers to is measuring. So I'm definitely not convinced yet either.

[Capt Dizle]

I am probably not smart enough to comment on this topic?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Hmm, which group devised IQ tests? Oh, yes I forgot, white males. BUt I am sure they would so just as well on an IQ test designed by black women, cause we all know how intelliegence is the same always. Just look at the trully successful and rich in the world- I bet you they are all mensa members, the whole lot of them, YUP, everyone in Mensa is sticking rich and has lots of babies and are genetic supermen.

ive heard it said the "Sweet spot" for IQ (in terms of income) is around 120 - thems the business execs, lawyers etc. ya go up to 140 ya get folks who think too much, who think themselves into problems, who are too concerned with the justice of the world to go for the main chance - 140s are scientists and assorted nerds. Some get rich, a la Bill Gates, but most don't. I think a whole lot of us can relate to that. Once you go up beyond 160 you tend to either get real geniuses, or folks who are so isolated from society that their intelligence is almost disfunctional.

Learning to really take advantage of the gifts of geniuses, and to distinguish them from the "moderately gifted" is something our society is not all that good at right now. QOTM is REALLY into this subject (related to issues we've had with gifted education) and i give you only a fraction of what she tells me.


BTW the founder of the multiple intelligence movement, Harold Gardner (?) is ALSO a white male.

[Jaguar]

I'm an Ashkenazic Jew who aces standardized tests, so I assume that people like me "proved" this hypothesis. However, I'm sure that on an IQ test, I could beat an African who is far smarter than me. Almost all standardized tests are culturally biased.

Take, for example, a chess puzzle. I've grown up playing chess. Say you gave both me and a genius Aborigine a board position and a sheet with the rules of chess on them, and you tell us to find mate in two. We've both been given all the information we need, so the test is fair, right? Never mind that the Aborigine has probably never even played a board game in his life, much less a game of chess.

Anyway, I think there's incontrovertible proof that any study like this one is false. There CANNOT be a genetic difference in intelligence between races. Man only got to Australia, for example, about 50,000 years ago. You would have to be an idiot with no understanding of evolution to believe that noticable changes in intelligence could evolve in that short amount of time.

And what makes theories about racial disparities in intelligence even more ridiculous is that often the hypothesis is "we're more technologically advanced than them, so intelligence is selected for in our society and we have evolved to become smarter than them." That's the dumbest of all. There have only been real differences in technology levels around the world in the last few millennia. Evolution works on a scale of BILLIONS of years.

There is simply no scientific explanation for why some races would be smarter than others, so therefore, we can only conclude that the tests aren't an accurate reflection of genetically inherited intelligence.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
Yeah, but that's a different test for a completely different thing. Intelligence is not about skills, be those survival skills or technological skills of the white devil modern human, but prowess in raw processing of sensory data, and general human interaction devoid of technological context.

How can you say intelligence is not about skills? HOw else do you measure it? By rote memorization fo facts? BY brilliant prose? By the ability to understand complex math? What??

You say prowess in processing raw sensory data: this I think is demostrably false: anyone with excellent hand-eye coordination is obviously better than someone with none at processing raw sensory data. Someone who is charming is better at general human interections than somebody who is introverted. But being charming or being able to catch a ball on a dead run do NOT mean you will do well in an IQ test. Being able to look at numbers is not interpreting raw sensory data, since tow people might look at the same thing and one sees numbers, the other sees meaningless ink squiggles on a piece of paper.

[Az]

anyone with excellent hand-eye coordination is obviously better than someone with none at processing raw sensory data

No, not really! Though the rapid processing of sensory data sometimes leads to improved hand-eye coordination, this is not always the case. Also, the visualisation of 3d objects in ones mind, abilities to create connections and properly define entities, all of these are parts of standard IQ tests, AFAI've seen.

Someone who is charming is better at general human interections than somebody who is introverted.

Yes, and being charming is part of social intelligence. What's the problem with this?

Being able to look at numbers is not interpreting raw sensory data, since tow people might look at the same thing and one sees numbers, the other sees meaningless ink squiggles on a piece of paper.

I am assuming that everyone knows numbers, for the sake of this discussion. Call me an ethnocentric shauvenist.


So let's summarize:

-No testing of skills.
-Testing of analytical power of recognizing and making the connections between entities in a described situation.
-Testing of the ability to socially interact ( preferrably with people of different cultural background).
- Testing of visualisation.

I think those are present quite well in IQ tests.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Azazel
Call me an ethnocentric shauvenist.

You ethnocentric chauvinist.

Now you can call me a spelling N@zi.

I'm thinking 'Poly as a whole would score low on the Dahmer-Diogenes social intelligence scale.

[Az]

You ethnocentric chauvinist.

Now you can call me a spelling N@zi.

You bastard!

[Sava]

turnip!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Azazel

You ethnocentric chauvinist.

Now you can call me a spelling N@zi.

You bastard!

I believe that's b@st@rd to you, @z@zel .


Godd thing your nom de plume's not @br@x@s . Think how tedious it would be to have to type that....

[Sandman]

If you believe in racial traits, then presumably a dark-skinned person with a sharp mind and poor running ability is less black than fastfooted but slow-witted person with the same skin colour.