“… It would help if we knew and could cope without branding people as stupid when they are just different…” – Archy
I find this the most salient point Neil. IQ, like the more recent EQ testing is pragmatic and provincial in nature. It has a function and often is used by people lacking other insights. And, as you have clearly pointed out, like many other sets of data, they can be used as well as abused when a larger view is taken. As to ‘good questions…being asked’, I suspect they are already known. In fact, you seem to present the answers without need for questions! It’s just that those abused, by definition, do not know how to change the issue quickly and those doing the abusing simply wish to maintain the entitlement. Oversimplification perhaps, but close, no? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBGT9Nb9UVE On Oct 27, 8:33 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Just sloppy on my part - I too was trained to flip the paper over like > a performing seal. I have taught in crammers and it is possible to > boost scores for a while. In a farce about this, Dr. Harbolt actually > flips chocolate drops to his pupils, who also wake up in trauma after > getting answers wrong earlier in the day. I was wondering whether a > whole community could be disaffected towards stuff like IQ as well as > 'encouraged' as we were and US east-Asians in particular are now. In > terms of the debate, it could be that some races are 'thick', though > this seems preposterous if you know much about genetics - yet the > debate is disallowed as 'racist' by PC buffoons and picked up as > 'proof' by racist clowns. > The tests we'd need to do would be such as dumping a load of white > babies with Aboriginals and seeing how they faired. One sample that > must exist is that of black children brought up by whites and other > colour mix examples. > I suspect what this tomfoolery really tells us is that culture is > really important and both flexible and inflexible and that we are over- > valuing whatever IQ tests. After all, one can hand equations and > algorithms over easily enough but not an honest life. To be honest, > I'd like a reliable IQ-like thing available and suspect in schooled > populations with the sample having decent parents, existing IQ tests > are reliable as a rough grading measure. We keep (Howard Gardner) > finding more and more frames of intelligence - 14 when I last took > note. Who is the brighter when we are hungry in the outback with our > 'double-MENSA' (at least like that it sounds like a disability!) or > the Aboriginal stuck on 65 who has found a slow worm and water? > > Intelligence, in one sense, is adaptation in environment. We might > learn to find water and food, but there is another pace of adaptation > involving epigenetics and even genes starting to do different things. > Aboriginals may be the most intelligent human form in their > environment. The arguments tend towards a hunky-dory outcome of > equality, but it could be that some races or even those subject to > islandisation, are not well-equipped for modern life and need more > than a generation to adapt. It would help if we knew and could cope > without branding people as stupid when they are just different. > Reasons to suspect meritocracy-intelligence arguments abound. > Bwankers are the obvious ones, politicians another - many of these are > crafted into place through long lines of family networks. Pouring > money into certain African pockets is another. I sense the good > questions aren't being asked. Anyone got them? > > On 27 Oct, 02:37, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > While I too have banged a head w/high IQ scores against countless > > walls over the decades Neil, I do take a small issue with one thing > > you said: > > > “…People can not be turned on at all to conforming to whatever gives a > > high IQ….” > > > Perhaps I misuse your term ‘gives’, changing it to determines, but I > > was attracted to learning how to take tests really really well as a > > kid! I studied books about it. I would have my hand on the test ready > > to turn it over at the sound of the bell! I still like to ‘test’ > > myself using logic and math problems… > > Perhaps this isn't 'conforming' either? > > > On Oct 26, 3:00 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Looking at IQ figures we tend to find Australian Aboriginals (65), sub- > > > Saharan Blacks (70), Blacks in white societies 85, American Indians > > > (87), whites (100) and on to east-Asians (103) as average scores. > > > This has been known and repeated for many years. We don't know too > > > much about what it means because we don't know that much about what IQ > > > is. > > > We could find out more, but I doubt it's worth much. The average IQ > > > of people the cops catch is about 82 in US society. We used to let > > > kids with IQs above about 115 into grammar schools (about the top > > > 30%). > > > > I don't know what other views are in here. I'm convinced some people > > > are as daft as mops, but this seems little to do with race. It is > > > linked with something we call intelligence, but I'm not sure IQ has > > > much to do with that. I'm bored with racist explanations and sick of > > > the eugenic origins of tests like this. How about this guess. > > > People can not be turned on at all to conforming to whatever gives a > > > high IQ. Mine was high as a kid, but I've banged my head against a > > > lot of walls since. Maybe we have it so wrong our best people tend to > > > rebel against doing what is socially approved as doing well and > > > achieving in the rip-off society? Any ideas?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
