Good morning, everyone, Taking a step back, my sense of this matter of IQ and ethnicity or nationality is that it doesn't matter very much... Why? Increasingly, people are moving about the planet pretty freely. Right now this movement is pretty much intellectual, for most people, i.e. it is our ideas and our language that move about, finding fertile soil here and there, taking root.
A small portion of our population is moving about physically, to conferences, to jobs, and to reside. The 'best' of the population (which some might say include 'high-IQ' individuals, and others would sneer and say it has nothing to do with that, but with discipline, caring, creativity, luck, or whatever,) engage in this movement based upon the opportunities that they detect and have access to -- regardless of location. They form teams with each other, clusterings of capability where these opportunities exist, and these clusterings develop their own internal allegiances. New communities emerge, and link with other clusters, and we end up with global entities that are replacing countries in terms of being loci of activity and allegiance. The days of 'the Chinese' or 'the Germans' or 'the Romans' rising to power based on ethnic commonality, or geographic regionality, or language or common history, are coming to a close, and I say, good riddance. Though this new way of being in the world has and will create its own unique set of challenges and problems, I do believe it is a better way to go than the old geographically defined entities. One of the problems has to do with what happens to those who don't have the ability to participate in the globalization of initiative. For reasons of skill, resources, or simple preference, they remain attached to lives that are only viable in the context of geography-defined communities. Does this present a problem? And, if so, what kind of problem, and what might its remedies be? Best regards, lawry de Bivort > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:36 AM > To: Ed Weick > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Pandora's Box (was Re: IQ-divide) > > > Hi Ed, > > I agree with most of what you've written below (and enjoyed your > observations of different cultures). > > I'll just make a couple of points in reply. Intelligence is such an > amorphous concept that no test can make absolute comparisons as between > individuals of one culture and another. Care has to be taken in comparing > test results between cultures. I was simply saying that on the basis of > 'white man's IQ tests' -- particularly successful in our present sort of > culture -- West Asians score highly and East Asians very highly. Thus, > ceteris paribus, high Chinese IQ ought to have significant consequences in > due course. > > The other point is that all IQ tests, even with their different culture > loadings, have high correlations with what is called the 'g-factor'. It is > possible to measure this 'g-factor' even more directly by the > reaction-time > to very simple tests (that is, simple physical tests which are > culture-free > and which everybody can achieve correctly). There's a lot of > research being > done on these sorts of chronometric tests. Put simply, it seems to mean > that all types of intelligence rest upon the speed of mental processing. > Intelligence being at an increasing premium in our technocratic society, > it's likely that these type of tests will be increasingly used in the > longer term future for selection purposes. At present, though, > chronometric > tests are far from being standardised and they are not able to be used > efficiently on large numbers of people. > > All this sounds horrific and clinical, but it's man's intelligence (and > curiosity) rather than anything else that makes us what we are relative to > other species. As Selma Singer recently pointed out, we have no other > outstanding physical or perceptual abilities. But as we proceed further > into a techocratic society I don't think we've any need to be > fearful about > losing cultural diversity. Within any given developed country population > there's undoubtedly far more cultural diversity, and careful > maintenance of > past arts, skills and crafts than ever before. Past cultures had > no concept > whatsoever of preserving previous ones. (In Laycock Abbey nearby, the > Perpendicular stonemasons simply built over the top of beautiful Early > English carvings. The architects of Georgian Bath tore down almost all > Tudor buildings in their haste to build.) > > The story of Adam and Eve being tempted in the Garden of Eden, and of > Pandora's Box in Hesiod's "Works and Days" ought to convince us that we > can't turn the clock back to some simpler, nobler time as some would like > us to. We became infected with more than adequate curiosity an awful long > time ago. And, I'm afraid, we're stuck with it. (And I think we'll be > grateful in due course when decisions about asteroids and super volcanoes > have to be made.) > > (P.S. Incidentally, an FW subscriber has written me privately that some > climatological research is suggesting that we are already beyond the > mid-point of the present warm Inter-Glacial period. If the pattern of the > 19 or 20 Ice Ages of the past is maintained then another Ice Age is more > than due. And it can strike quite quickly. If so, then I hope we'll have > developed solar technology by then -- 'cos we're going to need a > great deal > more electricity than we use now!) > > Keith > > At 14:00 22/03/02 -0500, you wrote: > >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] > >> _________________________________________________ > >> > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > “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] > _________________________________________________
