Hi Keith, I don't think I misunderstood, though I must admit to being in an ugly mood when I wrote the posting (happens when I crave chocolate, which in nearly always!). I believe that when people like educators measure IQ, they are measuring several things at the same time. One may be innate intelligence, but another is certainly the ability to operate within the dominant culture. Our culture emphasizes numeracy, literacy, and the rational manipulation of symbols. The IQ tests I remember writing had a lot of "this is to this as that is to what" kind of content which made good sense to me and my classmates but would probably not have made much sense to kids from a culture which does not emphasize such things. When I was in Japan some years ago, I learned that kids have to learn three different orthographies, the traditional one symbol/one word orthography they got from the Chinese, a syllabic orthography develop within the past 150 years, and the western alphabet, the latter because you can't really express things like "pizza" or "Macdonalds" in the other two. Can you imagine the advantage this gives Japanese kids in understanding and manipulating symbols?!
China may very well displace the USA as the dominant power, but I would argue that this is not because the Chinese are cleverer. If they do so, it would be because they work harder and keep their noses to the grindstone, much like pioneers in North America did at one time. Though I've not been there, I understand life is still difficult in China, but upward mobility is possible, so ever so many young people go for it. It's in ghettoized societies, where upward mobility is not possible, or not thought to be possible, that you find people who have given up. I've spent time in a couple of third world slums, one in Sao Paulo, the other in Kingston, Jamaica. Both are difficult places in which to survive, but there is a huge difference between them. The Sao Paulo slum was relatively new. Many people had arrived there from the countryside within the past ten to twenty years, and, even though by our standards their situation was pretty minimal, they thought their lives had improved greatly and there was hope of even more improvement. They worked hard, attended church and looked after their kids. And, yes, there was crime and violence, but most people were able to steer clear of it. The Kingston slums are very different - more in the nature of concentration camps than urban habitation. Places like Jonestown and Trenchtown are walled-in, violent places in which a lot of young people turn to crime because there is nothing else to do and no hope that there ever will be. To repeat my argument, there are clever people everywhere, but whether or not they can manifest their cleverness depends very much on their circumstances and on what is valued and emphasized in the societies in which they happen to be born. Right now, there may be half a dozen kids in Jonestown with very high IQs, but they'll probable use them in crime or the drug trade because those are the parameters in which they must operate. Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax (613) 728 9382 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:41 AM Subject: Re: IQ-divide > Hi Ed, > > You miss the point I'm making. > > Whatever the deficiencies of the IQ score as regards the desirable cultural > characteristics of man, it certainly correlates with success in today's > society and the predominant technocratic society into which we are moving. > > I am not justifying present society nor deprecating older societies. IQ may > be just "a bunch of junk!" (though I'm surprised at your writing this!) > from a different perspective. I am merely saying the evidence seems quite > strong that in tomorrow's world China is likely to displace America as the > predominant power because East Asians are cleverer than Caucasion whites. > > Keith > > At 09:22 22/03/02 -0500, you wrote: > > > >Keith Hudson, > >> > >> So, although it is not politically correct to say so, the evidence seems > >to > >> be building up that, whatever IQ happens to be, it is measurably different > >> between different 'races' and has a direct relationship with scholastic > >and > >> business ability, and also in civilised, peacable behaviour. > >> > >> Being a Causasian white belonging to a 'race' with a mean IQ of 100, I > >> don't think I can be charged with prejudice when suggesting that central > >> Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) with a probable mean IQ of about 120, and > >> East Asians (Chinese) with a mean IQ of about 140, deriving from the > >> circumstances of the two large migrations out of Africa during the last > >two > >> Inter-Glacials, will probably take over the role of the white man in the > >> coming decades. > >> > >> Keith Hudson > > > >Ever so much depends on what, as cultures, we value and therefore measure > >about ourselves. Ever so many things I've read suggest that the human > >capacity to think does not vary significantly from racial group to racial > >group, but how and to what that thinking is applied varies enormously. If I > >were to take an IQ test written by a traditional Athapascan Indian from far > >northern Canada, I would fail dismally, just as he would fail dismally if he > >were to write an IQ test written for white or asian academics and > >businessmen living in the suburbs of Toronto. I think the kinds of good / > >bad behaviour characteristics you describe can be explained by many factors > >other than innate intelligence. > > > >We've been down this race and intelligence road before. A Canadian academic > >once argued that intelligence varies inversely with the length of the penis, > >and because some Africans have longer penises, they must be less > >intelligent. It's a bunch of junk! > > > >Ed Weick > > __________________________________________________________ > "Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in > order to discover if they have something to say." John D. Barrow > _________________________________________________ > Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________ >
