race and IQ

13

Replies

  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,451 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    The problem with this argument is that it assumes that market mechanisms reward all these different types of intelligences the same way. But I think you know that they don't. People with outsize cognitive abilities thrive in the post-industrial world in a way that people who are say, mechanically inclined don't. Social policy, over time, will reflect that fact. Hence the viciousness of the debate. The stakes literally couldn't be higher.

    Agree with you 100%. My comments were general in nature only, addressing the meaning of intelligence since it is multi-dimensional which is what Pio is trying to point out. My comments were not meant to address the social and economic aspects associated with different levels of intellegence or lack thereof.
  • sherb wrote: »
    The problem with this argument is that it assumes that market mechanisms reward all these different types of intelligences the same way. But I think you know that they don't. People with outsize cognitive abilities thrive in the post-industrial world in a way that people who are say, mechanically inclined don't. Social policy, over time, will reflect that fact. Hence the viciousness of the debate. The stakes literally couldn't be higher.

    So now you think IQ testing shoujld measure the market value of certain traits? If that's what you want, why test, the market will show you the value directly and far more efficiently, or at least it would if actual markets operated at anything like their theoretical efficiency.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,905 Senior Member
    Let me put an end to this right now. As my mother and father kept telling me my entire academic career, "You scored in the upper 5 percentile." Therefore Binet was FOS.

    I am not sure how much genetic difference there is in the races since it really is a nonscientific designation based on superficial genetic differences. So even if you compiled some data that demonstrated a trend, I don't know that you could make the argument that race is a factor.

    That would be like saying that based on the evidence displayed on this forum, gingers are not as bright as guys with long curly sandy hair.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,905 Senior Member
    Jamespio wrote: »
    I've asked several times now for someone to tell me what exactly is this "intelligence" that you think can be measured by a Stanford-Binet.

    According to Dr Gardner, Binet was only measuring Linguistic and Logical Mathematical intelligence. He defines an intelligence as a cognitive ability that has real cultural value.

    I am really only familiar with his first book on this subject, but he was able to identify in "Frames of Mind" seven. Logical Mathematical, Linguistic, Spatial, Body Kinesthetic, Inter-personal, Intra-personal, and Musical Rythmic.

    But I really only have a layman's understanding of the subject.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • comic, it's obvious that you ave a better understanding than Brian who keeps insisting that "intelligence" is race based, but won't even attempt a definition. I suspect that seven types of intelligence is merely a lower bound, and that far more will be developed. It's the same problem we see in taxonomy, there are "splitters" and "groupers." Some folks will end up defining thrity differenty types of "intelligence," other will be satisfied with seven, or nine, or some similar number.
  • Jamespio wrote: »
    So now you think IQ testing shoujld measure the market value of certain traits? If that's what you want, why test, the market will show you the value directly and far more efficiently, or at least it would if actual markets operated at anything like their theoretical efficiency.

    Don't hurt yourself stretching like that. try warming up first.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,586 Senior Member
    That would be like saying that based on the evidence displayed on this forum, gingers are not as bright as guys with long curly sandy hair.

    Heeeyyy..... I think you just insulted me.
  • ouzelproouzelpro Senior Member Posts: 5,361 Senior Member
    I am reevaluating all of you based on this thread.
  • WetdogWetdog Senior Member Posts: 5,149 Senior Member
    Anyone take into consideration that individuals respond to different types of learning? If they are schooled in an inappropriate manner for that individual, is that an accurate measure of their potential. Sure not exactly on topic, but it has a significant influence....along with others. One size does not fit all.

    All this reminds me of "you know why black people don't play hockey? Because their ankles are weak." This I heard back in the early sixties.
    I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
    I find the willingness to give it up frightening.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,586 Senior Member
    They can't see as well at night, either.
  • sherb wrote: »
    Don't hurt yourself stretching like that. try warming up first.

    I wanted to show you how NOT to do it, when you finally get around to explaining in what way your market value post was actually responsive to the post it responded to.

    It was more fun to stretch than to simply point out the non sequitur.
  • WetdogWetdog Senior Member Posts: 5,149 Senior Member
    Albert Einstein had an IQ of about 60...who knew?
    I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
    I find the willingness to give it up frightening.
  • Jamespio wrote: »
    comic, it's obvious that you ave a better understanding than Brian who keeps insisting that "intelligence" is race based, but won't even attempt a definition. I suspect that seven types of intelligence is merely a lower bound, and that far more will be developed. It's the same problem we see in taxonomy, there are "splitters" and "groupers." Some folks will end up defining thrity differenty types of "intelligence," other will be satisfied with seven, or nine, or some similar number.

    I'm sorry. This has been bugging me all day and I blocked this site at work (so that I could, you know, do some work). I went back tonight and read all the posts carefully. BD never said intelligence was race-based. He said (paraphrased) that IQ was useful, and more importantly, intelligence could be quantified in some meaningful way.
  • Brian D.Brian D. Senior Member Posts: 4,011 Senior Member
    Sara wrote: »
    @Brain, there are other measures that are used to determine special needs. You have to score low in multiple tests to be identified as mentally challenged. Some kids may score low in knowledge, but higher in other categories, they are not identified as special needs.

    Yeah, but where the law gets involved, the cutoff for deeming someone exempt from the death penalty due to mental retardation is an IQ of 70. So the same people who argue IQ is meaningless on the top end are more than willing to use it as a "reliable" mechanism for exempting someone from execution on the bottom end. Let's hear someone argue that a defendant ought to be subject to execution because culture bias has rendered his IQ score artificially low, hmm?

    bd
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 10,196 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    I'm sorry. This has been bugging me all day and I blocked this site at work (so that I could, you know, do some work). I went back tonight and read all the posts carefully. BD never said intelligence was race-based. He said (paraphrased) that IQ was useful, and more importantly, intelligence could be quantified in some meaningful way.


    Sir, you need to adjust your priorities.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • Brian D.Brian D. Senior Member Posts: 4,011 Senior Member
    Jamespio wrote: »
    comic, it's obvious that you ave a better understanding than Brian who keeps insisting that "intelligence" is race based, but won't even attempt a definition.

    James, part of your problem is that you don't know the difference between having a discussion and being a prick. You type two and a half pages about "intellectual rigor" and apparently you don't even have a grasp on what I said - because by god, I certainly didn't say that.

    bd
  • Brian D.Brian D. Senior Member Posts: 4,011 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    He said (paraphrased) that IQ was useful, and more importantly, intelligence could be quantified in some meaningful way.

    Somebody give Sherb a gold star.

    I get impatient with the argument that "We can't call someone less intelligent just because they scored low on an IQ test. They're just as smart as everybody else - it just happens to be in a way that's not evident and is completely invisible to objective testing!" Cleetus over there would be a frickin' genius if only we'd given him the Papua New Guinea IQ test.

    bd
  • Brian D.Brian D. Senior Member Posts: 4,011 Senior Member
    Jamespio wrote: »
    Brian is once again spouting off on a topic he knows little about. Tests of functional mental age, tests that evaluate specific modes of knowledge and reasoning, tests of socialization levels, these are all things that REAL mental health professionals who actually have to do the hard stuff like educate the intellectually disabled, design programs to enhance their ability to live as independently as possible, figiure out how to integrate them into school, work and social environments all rely on. In fact, dam few of them even use Stanford-Binet, and if they do, it's one test among many which gives an overall picture of an individual. They certainly don't use S-B to make broad conclusions about ethnic groups.

    You know, after sleeping on it, I decided this **** post deserved a little more in-depth response.

    "Spouting off on something I know little about?" Indeed. Thank god your posts never fall victim to that flaw, James. Start off by not assuming that you know what others do and don't know about based on an effing Internet post.

    And as a further aside, where in the f-k did I mention the Stanford Binet? Oh, that's right, I didn't. YOU did, in your own douchey post a little earlier, and then you come back with the straw-man that "Brian doesn't know much about this topic because dam few mental health professionals even use the Stanford Binet (which only I mentioned in the first place)."

    Anyway, the fallacy of your argument is that I can't claim that IQ can be usefully measured on an objective basis unless I can boil down "intelligence" to a definition that somehow fits in a single internet post. That's horseshit. It's like saying you can't argue that labor unions are useful unless you can provide a simple, unambiguous definition of how the economy of a just society ought to function. Study of intelligence is a whole field unto itself, and dozens of books have been written on the subject. There are scores of different facets - reasoning (abstract, spatial, maybe "mechanical"), capacity to learn and problem solve, cognitive skills and comprehension, memory,scholastic aptitude, and to a lesser extent, yes, acquired skills and knowledge. So you'd say the topic isn't open to discussion unless I either write a fifty page essay with charts, graphs, and quotes from Wechsler and Feuerstein, or I provide a short but inadequate definition that you can **** about as if it's the be-all, end-all of the field.

    But does complexity of concept mean that no component of intelligence is objectively measurable or that it's harmful to claim otherwise? Of course not. The hazard is getting dragged into a Vonnegut-esque defense mechanism where treating everyone equally means putting blinders on to the idea that any objective test could show certain people have attributes that are superior to others. We have no problem with the idea that some folks (NOT races, James, NOT races) are innately faster runners or better at throwing a ball - but categorizing people based on their performance on an IQ test? My, my - now we are getting the vapors. If certain people perform better on a test, it must be a flaw in the test.

    Tell me this - if "culture bias" is a pervasive element that is so easily recognized, and we can so clearly explain why it skews IQ, why is it that nobody can come up with a "reverse culturally biased" test that usefully measures any commonly-recognized aspect of intelligence but skews the results toward different groups? Where is the "alternate WAIS" Or the "third world Stanford Binet" (there, now I mentioned it) that New Guinea tribesmen statistically do well on and Ashkenazi Jews do poorly on?

    bd
  • Hey Brian, I've asked repeatedly that yo udefine "intelligence" if you think IQ is meaningful. I know you'd rather focus on my posts that tyou think are douchey Now you've just claimed the definition is too hard to put iun a post. We can boil igt down to a single number but we can't even say what that number means in a whole paragraph?

    That is my problem with intelligence tseting. Study the field, Brian and you'll discover there are numberous other tests being used by intelligent psychologists who have learned that IQ is just not that helpful. And it is of no help at all when comjparing entire populations.

    BTW, Brian, excellent job of (1) accusing me of ascribing to you positions you didn't take (which was correct, I did that), then (2) ascribing to me positions I didn't take. Where exactly did I claim everyone shared equal portions of this undefinable trait called "intelligence?" I didn't. I'vejust been trying to get some of you really intelligent people to tell me what intelligent means.
  • Brian D.Brian D. Senior Member Posts: 4,011 Senior Member
    Google Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory. That's probably as good a place to start as any. No need for me to rewrite it all here.

    You failed to address my question about why nobody can create a reverse-culturally-biased test if it's so easy to recognize. Like most lame excuses in academia, claims of culture bias are completely un-falsifiable.

    bd
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,465 Senior Member
    I think I dropped a few IQ points after reading this ignorant thread. Thanx, I really didn't need any help getting stupider.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Jamespio wrote: »
    BTW, Brian, excellent job of (1) accusing me of ascribing to you positions you didn't take (which was correct, I did that),

    haha... James was wrong. Again.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 10,196 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    I think I dropped a few IQ points after reading this ignorant thread. Thanx, I really didn't need any help getting stupider.

    Look at the bright side - all that is happening is electrons zipping around. No trees died for this.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    I think I dropped a few IQ points after reading this ignorant thread. Thanx, I really didn't need any help getting stupider.

    Based on my reading this thread and your comment, I can only assume you're blacker than Wesley Snipes.
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,465 Senior Member
    Hextall wrote: »
    Based on my reading this thread and your comment, I can only assume you're blacker than Wesley Snipes.

    Well I do like fried chicken. And tater tots.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,905 Senior Member
    Brian D. wrote: »
    Yeah, but where the law gets involved, the cutoff for deeming someone exempt from the death penalty due to mental retardation is an IQ of 70. So the same people who argue IQ is meaningless on the top end are more than willing to use it as a "reliable" mechanism for exempting someone from execution on the bottom end. Let's hear someone argue that a defendant ought to be subject to execution because culture bias has rendered his IQ score artificially low, hmm?

    bd

    Hell I don't even like it used there. Are you going to tell me that if a guy scores a 71, he gets the needle? Is this the kind of faith the system puts in a test that is at the very least a flawed measure of intelligence?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,905 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    Well I do like fried chicken. And tater tots.

    Yes. But do you have Mac and Cheese for Thanksgiving?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • So, just to make sure I understand what ground we've covered so far.

    (1) sherb posts about whether liberal hysteria is preventing further research into the population dynamics of IQ testing;
    (2) I point out that IQ testing as it relates to entire populations is just stupid;
    (3) sherb takes me to task for not sticking to the subject, which is whether liberal hysteria is preveneting further research into population-level variations in IQ testing results;
    (4) Brian claims that IQ testing is useful in evaluating individuals (not populations);
    (5) sherb does not take Brian to task for not sticking to the subject which is (see above);
    (6) sherb takes me to task for accusing Brian of taking a position he did not actually take;
    (7) Brian accuses me of taking a position I did not actually take (although I deeply appreciate being compared to Kurt Vonnegut, I've never argued for some false equivalency in "intelligent" whatever "intelligence" might mean);
    (8) sherb does not take Brian to task for accusing someone else of taking a position he did not actually take.

    Have I missed something? I don't think I have. From the above I can reach two conclusions: (1) I am held to a different and higher standard than other lawyers; (2) the only plausible reason for (1) is that I am more intelligent than other lawyers. Occam's Razor requires that we all accede to the truth of (2). Of course, I'd concede that (2) may be incorrect if any one of you people could define just what exactly it is that you wish to call "intelligence" and then demonstrate that IQ tests actually measure that trait. But despite going on our second day of this thread, the only response I've gotten is that "intelligence is too hard to define in a post," (although apparently it can be assessed in a two to three digit number).

    The above relates solley to the lawyers who have posted here. Not ignoring the rest of you, just trying to limit this to an identifiable population since population dynamics was the point of the original post.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,586 Senior Member
    You forgot:

    9) MikeA is blacker than Wesley Snipes
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 10,196 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    You forgot:

    9) MikeA is blacker than Wesley Snipes

    10) Buffy is blacker than Michael Jackson was.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.