0
   

Top scientist claims black people 'stupid'

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 05:24 am
spendius wrote:

Your ruler analogy is woeful and betrays a singular lack of intelligence.


Well, at least it proves that there's not much/deeper knowledge about this subject.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 05:37 am
spendius wrote:
Your ruler analogy is woeful and betrays a singular lack of intelligence.
Very Happy Well I had to dumb it down a bit. Intelligence is what an IQ test measures. I dont say it measures spatial intelligence emotional intelligence or any other personality trait. It just measures that which it measures, and on that measure there are statistically significant differences between racial groups. Or at least thats what Watson is saying. Of course the variations within a group are much wider than between groups, so you should never make assumptions about individuals. However that should not blind one to the fact that taken as a group for example white caucasians are less intelligent than chinese Smile.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 05:45 am
Hey in the International Mathematics Olympiad for schoolkids the gold medals almost always are won by Chinese.

Swots.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 05:48 am
tinygiraffe wrote:
they also used to think women weren't as smart as men because they have smaller skull cavities- except that brain size matters less to intelligence than density, as scientists later found out.


So women are more dense?

Shocked :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 05:51 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
However that should not blind one to the fact that taken as a group for example white caucasians are less intelligent than chinese Smile.


Well, though certainly more white/whitish people are living in the Caucasian republics than in China.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 05:55 am
McTag wrote:
So women are more dense?


Sure, their muscular mass is denser than ours Cool
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 06:17 am
Intelligence tests are mainly designed to function so that the middle-classes reserve the Paperwork and Gratuitous Interference Party "jobs" for their own privileged offspring. Just try watching them trying to fix the electrical system in their cars.

There's a BT executive comes in our pub who claims he has an IQ of 147 and when he expressed an interest in relocating to America (subtract 30 for that) I loaned him Geoffrey Gorer's book The Americans, which is pretty simple stuff by my standards, and he couldn't read it. "Too heavy" he said. What he would make of Talcott Parsons or Thorstein Veblen I shudder to think.

And he has been reamed out by two ladies on two separate occasions and another one is working on it now.

The test which produced the result cost him £400 and a wasted weekend in a college which hires out its facilities during slack periods. (Deduct another 20 plus a further 10 for even knowing where to apply).

I have heard it said that IQ tests measure how many warm rooms a person's parents have in their house.

And I have seen an apprentice engineer who failed all his exams make a scale model of a Princess class locomotive about 8 feet long out of scrap metal in a cabin at the bottom of the garden, which he then took to shows with track and sit on carriages for kids to ride on and puffing real smoke.

That's more my idea of intelligence.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 06:18 am
Francis wrote:
McTag wrote:
So women are more dense?


Sure, their muscular mass is denser than ours Cool
and how would you know? Laughing

talking of muscular mass, I presume you will be shouting for the red rose of England on Saturday Francis?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 06:20 am
I rarely agree with spendi but here re IQ-tests I certainly do.
(We did at univerity quite a few from different 'schools' and countries - with [not surpringly] different results. [Mine were 45 points, from the 'worst' to the 'best'.])
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 06:26 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
talking of muscular mass, I presume you will be shouting for the red rose of England on Saturday Francis?


I'm always for red roses.

Yes, I'll be supporting England (shouting is beyond my usually debonair demeanor)..
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 06:27 am
spendius wrote:
...
And I have seen an apprentice engineer who failed all his exams make a scale model of a Princess class locomotive about 8 feet long out of scrap metal in a cabin at the bottom of the garden, which he then took to shows with track and sit on carriages for kids to ride on and puffing real smoke.

That's more my idea of intelligence.
yes spends it might well be. and it does have certain charm. But its not the type of intelligence test we are referring to here. And in anycase getting the Chinese to construct model steam engines out of scrap metal would denude the earth's resources so fast we wouldnt have to worry about global warming or anything else.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 06:52 am
What the good Doctor noted was a fact, carefully measured by standard testing, I would assume IQ testing.

The article gave me a strong sense of deja vu, this exact conclusion was reached in a similar study conducted in the late 60's or early 70's. With exactly the same reaction from our "Politically Correct" society. The Social Scientist who had the audacity to utter such heresy was branded with the "R" word (racist), was buried in heaps of scorn and ignored hence. (Probably didn't do much for his/her subsequent academic career either. Not to menton an assault on the concept of "free speech".)

Clear case of "killing the messenger". The message remains, however.

The standard IQ test, I believe it is called the Sanford-Binet test, IS culturally biased. In the case of the US it is biased toward the dominent group, Anglo-Saxon Whites with English as the primary language construct. The test results are then matched to the testee's age for the final reading of the "IQ". In general, then, a person's IQ changes as a function of time. If one tested, say fifteen years apart over a lifetime, one would see some change in the resultant score. (I, for instance, had an eight point spread over a 34 year period of time) The ball park stayed the same, but the distance to the fence varies. Laughing

So, we can surmise"

1) IQ is a function of time.

2) As mentioned earlier, IQ is, in part, a function of cultural bias.

3) IQ is, in part, a result of schooling conditions and the effort the student makes to learn, regardless of conditions. (i.e. Orientals tend to work harder, their culture seems to revere education like a Religion.)

4) IQ is a function of the grasp the testee has of the English language.

5) IQ MAY be a function of genetics, but it is difficult to pin down. (My parents were "uneducated". i.e. no college, but very intelligent.), All four of their offspring did well in college. They also encouraged education, so it becomes tainted by enviornmental factors in the home. (Back to #3.)

So, while a study might show a statistically significant difference in IQ between certain groups, the cause/effect trail is hard to trace. More than likely a mix of all the above points. "Controlling" a group study for all those factors would be well neigh impossible. Sad

Since Billions have been spent on Education over the last 40 years, and we don't seem to going anywhere positive with that expenditure, and that recent studies seem to indicate that Americans in general are reluctant to go into the Sciences or Mathamatics (in comparison to the 60's, let's say.)

I think the best we can do to enhance educational factors of IQ, is to encourage education and to motivate the students. It's OK to be a "geek"! Laughing I leave it to the educators to come up with the constructs to "make it happen".

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 07:50 am
Tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought IQ measures precociousness. Meaning, the test divides the test taker's age into the age that his/her score correlates to the average score of an "age class." For example, a 10 year old has a score that is equal to the "average" score of 13 year olds. So, 13/10 = 1.3 or 130 IQ. This, I thought, just means that this 10 year old is as smart (in the test) as the average 13 year old. Now 13 year olds are not usually geniuses; it just means that this 10 year old is precocious, in that he/she is smarter than the average 10 year old; equal to the average intelligence of a 13 year old.

Society, I guess, believes that this precociousness will continue, or at least allows the child to be a "fast learner," which society rewards with advancing to the next grade level, and then beyond in college.

Possibly, this precociousness is lessened when children of some backgrounds find no incentive to "be precocious"? This lack of incentive is found in all backgrounds, but possibly, due to socioeconomic factors is statistically very obvious in certain groups?

The question, perhaps, is whether some cultures are able to overcome possible external pressures that could result in less motivated children. Probably much has to do with the collective self-esteem of a group's culture. For those cultures that give its members more self-esteem, this might be a result of history, and unpredictable factors? But, I don't believe intelligence, or lack of it, is inherent in a genetic way.

I wonder whether a good level of self-esteem can be like a fever (a little kills an infection; too much kills the organism) and too much results in a superiority complex? And, then there's the theory that all superiority complexes are compensating for feelings of inferiority. Is it all just a big circle?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 07:57 am
Hb wrote-

Quote:
I leave it to the educators to come up with the constructs to "make it happen".


Which will be more of the same I'm afraid.

Mummy and Daddy have white-collar jobs. Mummy and Daddy want offspring to be in white-collar jobs so that the family genetic material is not besmirched with dirty hands. Mummy and Daddy vote for educational testing systems which get offspring high marks (hence avoid science and mathematics). Employers, who are obviously like Mummy and Daddy, take high marks as qualification for white-collar jobs.

Hey-presto-- mission accomplished. Most real talent unused. Incompetence, disguised with long winded assertions, rules. Nation goes tits up once advantages of natural resources squandered.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 08:17 am
spendius wrote:
Hb wrote-

Quote:
I leave it to the educators to come up with the constructs to "make it happen".


Which will be more of the same I'm afraid.

Mummy and Daddy have white-collar jobs. Mummy and Daddy want offspring to be in white-collar jobs so that the family genetic material is not besmirched with dirty hands. Mummy and Daddy vote for educational testing systems which get offspring high marks (hence avoid science and mathematics). Employers, who are obviously like Mummy and Daddy, take high marks as qualification for white-collar jobs.

Hey-presto-- mission accomplished. Most real talent unused. Incompetence, disguised with long winded assertions, rules. Nation goes tits up once advantages of natural resources squandered.


I've never heard of the "dirty hands" theory of genetic reproduction? I think you might have left out the "affiliation orientation" of Mom and Dad (please use Americanese when replying to us Yanks). I mean, if there is any goal of Mom and Dad, I believe, it is for the children to associate with the "right" children, from kindergarten through college, so the "family's social status" will not be affected negatively for all posterity.

That might very well positively correlate to manual labor jobs vs. white collar jobs, but that is not the driving force, I believe. I believe the driving force is for the family's social position (in the invisible social status ladder) to remain at its current rung, or even move up a rung).

But, this is where the U.S. has an advantage to countries of smaller populations. In the U.S. the population is large enough to have players in the social status game, while others are just "achievement oriented" and move the country ahead.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 09:00 am
Greg Laden, an anthropology professor at the University of Minnesota has responded to James Watson in a science blog:

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 09:30 am
Greg Laden puts it very well. Thanks, JW!

(Any encyclopedia will give a similar, but shorter answer - some [hand]books about IQ-meassuring have longer chapters.)
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 10:46 am
Foofie wrote:
....Mom and dad (please use Americanese when replying to us Yanks).


What are you...CRAZY?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 12:12 pm
I liked the Laden piece too, thanks wandel.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 12:30 pm
Greg Laden gave my opinion as well.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2021 at 07:01:44