 |
| |
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
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
|
 |
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
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. |
And none of those things have anything to do with the ability to rapidly analyze sensory imput, now do they?
quote:
Yes, and being charming is part of social intelligence. What's the problem with this? |
Social intelliegence is not a part of IQ tests, last time I looked.
quote:
I am assuming that everyone knows numbers, for the sake of this discussion. Call me an ethnocentric shauvenist. |
Already done. It goes to the heart of the problem which you denied, whcih is that who makes the test matters- because test assume shared cultural experiences that might not exist and will mean lower scores for those who don't share them.
quote:
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. |
IQ tests do NOT test the ability to interact socially- measuring that would be far too subjective to make a worthwhile part of any standardized exam.
Of course skills are part of the test- at the minimum, they test literacy-the smartest illiterate person will fail an IQ exam-back to the "who made the test" problem. Any test that asks any math questions assumes a fair amount of math lietarcy, which is a skill itself as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
We are all gathered together to mourn Azazel, who in the failed attempt to back up a collapsing arguement suffered a terrible and bloody death.
|
Sorry to disappoint you, you've x-posted with me, actually. 
I am not going to reply to each of your points, just to the last one, because I've posted a summary and you replied to it:
quote:
IQ tests do NOT test the ability to interact socially- measuring that would be far too subjective to make a worthwhile part of any standardized exam.
|
says you.
quote:
Of course skills are part of the test- at the minimum, they test literacy-the smartest illiterate person will fail an IQ exam-back to the "who made the test" problem. Any test that asks any math questions assumes a fair amount of math literacy, which is a skill itself as well.
|
It seems that at times you're an annoying bastard. I guess breathing is a skill tested as well, because people who don't breathe are at a natural disadvantage. Ok, especially for you, the tests will be readfor the recipient by an sexless computer voice, and the test will be entirely visual. WRT math solving questions, you don't have to have them on an intelligence test.
Last edited by Az on 25-03-2005 at 00:48
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
says you. |
Its pretty simple to see why this would not work in a stardardized exam, but I will develop this later.
quote:
It seems that at times you're an annoying bastard. I guess breathing is a skill tested as well, because people who don't breathe are at a natural disadvantage. Ok, especially for you, the tests will be readfor the recipient by an sexless computer voice, and the test will be entirely visual. WRT math solving questions, you don't have to have them on an intelligence test. |
No breathing is not a skill- it is genetically hardwired. Man kind was illiterate for 99% of its hitory. It certainly did breathe for 100% of its existance. You see how silly examples just sink your arguement?
You want a simple, non-culturally biased exam? Then do exams like those we do for animals:
Place hungry individuals in a room- have a wonderful smelling stew on top of a tower in the middle of the room. Strewn around the room are object and tools that would enable people to reach the food in a variety of ways. Measure how long it took people to get the food.
Oh, and for those who insist of thinking the tests are not biased and that this data is meaningful. Well, who says race is the cause? There are obvious historical exmaples of negative pressures being applied on both the black and azkhenazi communities, NO?
For the Jews, the pressures probably got rid of the "dumber" members of the group rather strenously. For blacks, intelligence would NOT be a plus- remember that domesticated versions of animals are less intelligent that their wild ancestors.
(I hope that was start enough for everyone).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seeker
|
 |
London Ontario
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
if it's all a matter of "certain neurotransmitters" like this article suggests then why don't we just inject ourselves with something to raise the level/activity of these neurotransmitters?
If we would just inject kids with currently unknown stimulants and drugs, all our problems would be solved!
I am one of those who believe that 'g' may exist, but is made up of components.
The '50% of any mental acuity test measures g' sounds like BS to anyone who has written an LSAT.
The LSAT is divided into different tests, Logical Reasoning, Analytical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, etc. Ones score can vary WILDLY between these different areas, like mine did. Someone might be very good at Analytical, but suck at Logical, or vice versa, which implies to me that inteligence is specialized and compartmentalized.
my LSAT was only 160, so what do I know anyway?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
I am always amazed when this topic comes up. Someone produces facts that blacks (or other racial groups) have lower IQ, or peform worse on various tests, and then everyone jumps on that person for making such a statement. Generally the responses break down into these areas:
1. The test is culturally biased, is designed by a bunch of upper-middle-class white males, and cannot be trusted to reliably test intelligence or other categories. Many tests and researchers are actually racist, and are pushing some ulterior political goal.
2. The poor showing on the test isn't an intrisic, genetic disability in a certain race, they are purely environmental. If the black man was wealthy, went to good schools, lived in safe communities and had proper support he'd score just as well as anyone else.
3. The tests don't matter, and are merely used as justification for racism and discrimination. Whether they are true or not, to talk about it only leads to bad consequences. People should be accepted and respected because they are people, not because they can get a good score on a test.
4. Sure they may have lower IQ, but they have many other positive skills and qualities in other areas and should be valued and respected for those.
To these people who make these arguments I say: You are right. 100%. All the above arguments describe part of the problem that leads to these tests.
What baffles me is when these same exact people blindly accept data showing youth to be inferior, or less mature, or less rational, or dumber, or anything else. When I make the EXACT same arguments as those above, then I get yelled at for being some crazy kid who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
So which is it? Are intelligence tests, and rationality tests and such innacurate measures of a person's worth (young/old & white/black) and should be discarded with discredited racial science of a century ago? Or are blacks and youth truly inferior because the tests say so?
Because frankly, if you can look at data showing one group of people (blacks) is less smart and say it is biased and doesn't matter, and yet look at data showing of another group of people (youth) is less smart and say it is 100% correct and provides justification for laws X, Y, Z, then I think it is your ability to think clearly and reason competently that should be examined.
This is a glaring contradiction that many people haven't had the courage to address. If environmental factors and biased tests can produce results saying Blacks are, on average, less intelligent than whites, couldn't it be a possability that environmental factors and biased tests are the reasons behind a lot of these "studies" and "facts" that show youth are less rational than adults?
Why are people afraid to accept that possability?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Place hungry individuals in a room- have a wonderful smelling stew on top of a tower in the middle of the room. Strewn around the room are object and tools that would enable people to reach the food in a variety of ways. Measure how long it took people to get the food.
|
What kind of stew? If it's Borsch, forget it. Beef Stew, maybe... Split Pea? Nope.
Cultural biases or even sexual biases do and have existed in these tests, and every effort should be made to remove them, except where language is concerned.
Intelligence is the ability to learn, interpret, and reason information given to you. You can divide it up into what Seeker's LSAT does, or into any number of catagories. We CAN define it, measuring is a little more difficult because we have been using a bowl of sweet smelling watercrest soup, when to many blacks, chinese, and most rednecks, watercrest soup is not sweet smelling.
You catch my drift?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2005 22:29
|