I'm saying that intelligence *as measured in say the Stanford-Binet* is at least partially cutural.
On 10/28/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > about every else here whose family doesn't -- are they stupid? Are you > > really saying there is no such thing as cultural bias in an IQ test? > > > > What I'm saying makes much more sense: > > (1.) "intelligence" is 100% determined by genetics. > > (2.) We can create taxonomies to describe genetic traits: black > people, curly haired people, Packer's fans. > > (3.) It's 100% likely that a certain code of genes gives you certain > mental abilities. We could group them all up and call them > "intelligence" or we could split them up and call them "emotional > intelligence", "language intelligence", etc. > > Therefore, depending on the taxonomies we create, we could create a > probability structure based on a population survey that would give a > probably of an individual having trait X given that they have trait Y. > > Or we could just all admit that an Augustinian priest has done this > 100 years ago with pea plants and be done with it. > > Why is it so damn hard for people to admit that their intelligence is > genetically determined and that it may be tied to other genetic traits > like number of moles or length of fingers. > > For some reason if you imply that it might be skin color, as Dr. > Watson did, people freak out. Seems just a likely as anything else to > me. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade to ColdFusion 8 and integrate with Adobe Flex http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJP Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:245350 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
