The Concept Of IQ Is Based On Lies And Elaborate Deception

[Abdul-Aziz]

Here is what the psychology text book has to say on the subject:

“Genetic influences on Intelligence:

Do people who share the same genes also share comparable mental abilities? As you can see from figure 33.1, which summarizes many studies the answer is clearly yes. In support of genetic contributions to inelegance researchers site three sets of findings:”

 

”Across 10,000 twins, the intelligence test scores of identical twins reared together are virtually as similar as those of a person taking the test twice(Lykken, 1999; Plomin, 2001). (The scores of fraternal twins, who typically share only half their genes, are much less similar.) Likewise the test score of identical twins reared apart are similar enough to lead twin researcher Thomas Bouchard(1996) to estimate that ‘about 70 percent of intelligence score variation can be attributed to genetic variation.’ Other researchers offered estimates from 50 to 75 percent.”

 

It is also well-known that twin studies are plagued by numerous methodological difficulties that largely invalidate them as legitimate sources upon which further scientific investigation can be based. First, you are using a generalization based on a small, unrepresentative subpopulation of individuals and using this as an explanation for phenotypic/behavioural variation within the general population at large. In order for twin studies to have any validity whatsoever, twins from a representative sample of the genetic variation within a population would need to be adopted into families from a representative sample of the environmental variation within a population. No twin study has ever done this. Secondly, investigators have yet to identify those specific environmental factors and gene-gene interactions most responsible for cognitive development, meaning that whatever estimates of heritability are made, they are ultimately based upon the logical fallacy of correlation equals causation. And thirdly, conventional mathematical calculations for the estimation of heritability involve the minimization and isolation of genotype-environment correlations through randomization of micro-environmental influence. Given the sheer complexity of human social behaviour and the fact that early childhood socialization begins at birth, being central to both infant survival and future integration into adult society, the genotypic-environmental contributions to the distribution of human phenotypic characters can neither be minimized nor relegated to that of an experimental control, as in the case of animals or plants; because of this, it is virtually impossible to disentangle the relative contributions of both genes and environment to the development of phenotypic diversity. Hence, because no twin study has ever been able to minimize, isolate, and control for the presence of genotypic-environmental interaction, estimates of heritability based on the available evidence are both meaningless and unwarranted.

 

The fact that your studies refer to the heritability of intelligence, makes your thesis even more ridiculous than it already is. First, there are no specific genes that code for intelligence, and secondly, there is no consensus on what intelligence is amongst modern psychologists. Thirdly, IQ is not even a phenotypic trait, making the notion of its heritability problematic to begin with; it is grounded in no theoretical substructure and can only be measured in one way and one way alone. IQ measurements themselves are determined by convention; the measurements obtained vary wildly from researcher to researcher, demonstrating that IQ is not an objective measure in the first place. Besides, even if there was such a thing as "IQ" and it were supposedly "heritable", it wouldn't affect the malleability or plasticity of trait possession, because of the infinite number of combinations between high/low heritability and high/low malleability dictated by logic and observed widely throughout nature.

 

“Brain scans reveal that identical twins have very similar gray matter volume. More ever unlike fraternal twins their brains are virtually the same in areas associated with verbal and spatial intelligence(Thompson and others, 2001)”

 

Monozygotic twins would be more identical in anatomical structure than dizygotic twins. Either way, this adds nothing to your case that IQ is somehow genetically inherited. So?

 

“Are there genes for genius? Comparisons of the genes of people of high versus average intelligence have produced slow progress in identifying the many genes that contribute to cognitive ability. By inserting an extra gene into fertilized mouse eggs researchers have, however, produced smarter mice – mice that excel in at learning and remembering the location of a hidden underwater platform or at recognizing cues that signal an impending shock(Tsien, 2000). The gene helps create a neural receptor involved in memory.”

 

Tsien doctored some genes to improve the memory and learning skills of mice. Interesting. However, this adds nothing to your case that human intelligence is largely genetically heritable or that genes for intelligence have been found in mice, let alone human beings. I think the main point here is:

 

Are there genes for genius? Comparisons of the genes of people of high versus average intelligence have produced slow progress in identifying the many genes that contribute to cognitive ability.

 

Psychology Eighth Edition By Dr. David Myers pg 454

 

Given complete equality of opportunity the only thing affecting those choices would be genetics.

 

Given complete equality of opportunity, the only thing affecting their genetics would be the influence of external variables.

 

Wait! Did you just mention a study from Thomas Bouchard? I hope you know that Thomas Bouchard is a neo-Nazi who has strong ties to the white supremacist Pioneer Fund. He also supports the racist theories of the Bell Curve and is a close personal friend of another white supremacist named Linda Gottfredson.

 

The fact that you mentioned a known racist named Thomas Bouchard as one of your sources almost completely invalidates your argument and reflects very negatively on what kind of person you are. Are you hiding anything we should know about?

Edited December 22, 2008 by Abdul-Aziz
multiple post merged

[thedarkshade]

Well the question you need to ask yourself is: if intelligence is largely determined by genetic factors, then how come no one has been able to discover genes that code for intelligence?

But that is no proof that intelligence is not determined by genetic factors. Maybe we still don't have the technology needed to do that. Keep in mind that we know the structure and function of just a few genes compared to their overall number.

 

Besides, if intelligence is not determined so much from genetic factors, what could have possibly influenced in Newton's intellectuall brilliancy? What outside factor? Apples and trees?

[Abdul-Aziz]

But that is no proof that intelligence is not determined by genetic factors. Maybe we still don't have the technology needed to do that. Keep in mind that we know the structure and function of just a few genes compared to their overall number.

 

Well, it does demonstrate that the connection between intelligence and genetics is one largely of speculation and unsatiated wish-fulfillment.

 

Besides, if intelligence is not determined so much from genetic factors, what could have possibly influenced in Newton's intellectuall brilliancy? What outside factor? Apples and trees?

 

I do not doubt the fact that genetics plays a role in the development of human intelligence, but it is a marginal one at best and it can exert a considerable influence over the lives of some individuals, such as Newton. However, the price of genius is the onset of madness, and the history of Sir Isaac Newton's eccentricities and personal foibles are a perfect illustration of this. In fact, genius is a dimension of human behaviour that involves more than just being "intelligent"; it is generally accompanied by some form of mental illness (particularly psychosis, manic depression), suggesting that it is a kind of psychological condition akin to having a genetic brain disorder or being an idiot savant. Who knows? Maybe being too intelligent might not exactly be good for your own personal health.

[bob000555]

There are literally thousands of traits that have a high degree of heritability for which the specific causal gene has yet to be found, these traits range from handedness(left handed or right) to schizophrenia. It is hypothesized that this is because the traits are the result of the complex interaction of many genetic systems.

 

As for you claim about twin studies can you point to a single reliable source that discredits them. It is not often that articles published in prestigious peer reviewed journals(which are the only kind of studies that end up in the definitive text book on a subject) are based on “long discredited” methods.

 

The bell curve is not a racist tool it is a statistical tool used to display the outcomes of studies. Just because you find those outcomes objectionable does not invalidate them. And come off it psychological text books don’t site studies by neo-Nazis. The land of science does not care with whom a person associates it does not invalidate there study in any way.

 

Come off your high horse and stop arguing with the textbook.

 

Scientific endeavour is socially constructed to begin with; the content of science is culture specific and ultimately shaped by both the perceptual biases and combined socio-cultural interactions of its various participants. Your failure to acknowledge this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the very nature of science is, indicating that for you, DNA functions as ideology.

 

Oh stop it. The content of science may be cultural influenced but the content of science does not effect the actuality of science; weather or not we chose to acknowledge the genes can hobble or strengthen us we cannot prevent them from doing so.

[Ophiolite]

I thought it was interesting that in a thread intended to discuss intelligence testing in a scholarly fashion the following word count may be found in your opening post:

 

charlatan(ism) 2

falsehood(s) 2

bigot 7

racist 3

 

The emotion weakens your argument, for it carries with it the risk that you may be cherry picking your data.

 

On a separate point, why do you feel that if intelligence were genetic this would have to be controlled by a single gene? What leads you to believe that intelligence would be controlled in a quite different way from many other genetically controlled characteristics?

[Abdul-Aziz]

There are literally thousands of traits that have a high degree of heritability for which the specific causal gene has yet to be found, these traits range from handedness(left handed or right) to schizophrenia. It is hypothesized that this is because the traits are the result of the complex interaction of many genetic systems.

 

Again, you're completely missing the point, as I am not denying the heritability of certain traits. However, what I am saying is that estimates of heritability are not possible if genotype-environment correlations/interactions can neither be isolated nor minimized as experimental controls, as in the case of certain plants/animals. This suggests that with human beings, genotype-environment and gene-gene interactions are so complex that they cannot be disentangled by simple estimates of trait heritability; thus, a considerably more sophisticated methodological analysis is needed. The dearth of evidence for specific causal genes/complex multi-allelic systems underlying the genetic transmission of phenotypic variance does not mean that the genetic basis of heritability is non-existent, but it should temper an excessive religious faith in genes as supreme destiny.

 

As for you claim about twin studies can you point to a single reliable source that discredits them.

 

Actually, there is an enormous volume of literature that has been published in recent years which thoroughly discredits the twin study as an instrument of scientific investigation. One that I would strongly recommend is that of Kamin and Goldberger (2002).

 

It is not often that articles published in prestigious peer reviewed journals(which are the only kind of studies that end up in the definitive text book on a subject) are based on “long discredited” methods.

 

You would be surprised. Many articles advocating racial/gender superiority, based on the discredited concept that intelligence can somehow be objectively measured, are still being published in credible, peer-reviewed journals. The articles of white/male gender supremacists such as J.P. Rushton and R. Lynn always end up in the most respectable journals.

 

The bell curve is not a racist tool it is a statistical tool used to display the outcomes of studies. Just because you find those outcomes objectionable does not invalidate them.

 

I wasn't speaking of the bell curve as a statistical tool, I was referring to The Bell Curve as a book written by C. Murray and R. Herrnstein. Where have you been all these years? In the book, the authors predict the emergence of a welfare state presided over by a high IQ cognitive elite who happen to be predominantly white/east Asian/male. If you don't find that morally repugnant, then you need to do some soul searching.

 

 

And come off it psychological text books don’t site studies by neo-Nazis. The land of science does not care with whom a person associates it does not invalidate there study in any way.

 

Oh yes they do, as your citation of Thomas Bouchard clearly demonstrates. The land of science may not care about with whom a person associates, but it does care about who funds the study being conducted, the credentials of the person conducting the study, and whether that study was based on a thoroughly discredited scientific methodological approach or not. And from what I understand, the Pioneer Fund has never funded a study refuting its white supremacist, neo-Nazi ideology.

 

Oh stop it. The content of science may be cultural influenced but the content of science does not effect the actuality of science;

 

The purpose of scientific investigation is not to be objective, because that is impossible, but to approximate empirical objectivity as closely as possible.

 

 

weather or not we chose to acknowledge the genes can hobble or strengthen us we cannot prevent them from doing so.

 

This is where you are wrong. It is the complex interaction of genes and environment that can both hobble and strengthen us.

 

I thought it was interesting that in a thread intended to discuss intelligence testing in a scholarly fashion the following word count may be found in your opening post:

 

charlatan(ism) 2

falsehood(s) 2

bigot 7

racist 3

 

The emotion weakens your argument, for it carries with it the risk that you may be cherry picking your data.

 

What I am expressing is moral indignation at the fact that intelligence testing has been used to forcibly sterilize, deport, maim and even commit acts of racially motivated genocide against others. Maybe you would react the same way if you were well-versed in the history of IQ, depending on whether you had a conscience or not.

 

I strongly suggest that you read up on the history of IQ.

 

On a separate point, why do you feel that if intelligence were genetic this would have to be controlled by a single gene? What leads you to believe that intelligence would be controlled in a quite different way from many other genetically controlled characteristics?

 

I don't think intelligence is controlled by a single gene; I don't think it is controlled any differently from any other trait. Intelligence is a product of both genetic and environmental factors, which happen to be both inextricably intertwined.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Abdul-Aziz
multiple post merged

[Mokele]

But does the fact that IQ has been used in the service of racism invalidate it? Remember that eugenics folks mis-used evolution to promote their ideas, but that clearly doesn't invalidate it.

 

There are plenty of legit issues with IQ, but that it's been mis-used in the past (and to some extent in the present) isn't one of them.

[Reaper]

If IQ's are meaningless, then what does it mean for a person with an IQ of 50 cannot take care of his/herself. And this is very well documented, that people with lower IQ's learn much more slowly and lack self-help skills in general....

[Abdul-Aziz]

But does the fact that IQ has been used in the service of racism invalidate it? Remember that eugenics folks mis-used evolution to promote their ideas, but that clearly doesn't invalidate it.

 

There are plenty of legit issues with IQ, but that it's been mis-used in the past (and to some extent in the present) isn't one of them.

 

I have no problem with IQ, provided it is used in the sense that it was originally intended by the founder of psychometric testing, Alfred Binet: as a useful measure of practical life skills and secondarily, as a means of roughly evaluating current academic progress during the course of a school year. IQ tests were only abused when they were seen as objective measures of cognitive ability and made to correlate with Spearman's general factor of intelligence, a move that Binet strongly opposed. In fact, the first tests that Binet put together were not designed to measure intelligence. Concerning the purpose of the first tests, Binet wrote:

 

This scale properly speaking does not permit the measure of the intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured, but are on the contrary, a classification, a hierarchy among diverse intelligences; and for the necessities of practice this classification is equivalent to a measure. We shall therefore be able to know, after studying two individuals, if one rises above the other and to how many degrees, if one rises above the average level of other individuals considered as normal, or if he remains below.

 

When Alfred Binet spoke of the measurement of "intelligence", he did not mean intelligence in the sense that Spearman or Sir Cyril Burt used the word. For him, intelligence was about good judgment and practical life skills. In a famous passage, Binet explains:

 

It seems to us that in intelligence there is a fundamental faculty, the alteration or the lack of which, is of the utmost importance for practical life. This faculty is judgment, otherwise called good sense, practical sense, initiative, the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances. To judge well, to comprehend well, to reason well, these are the essential activities of intelligence. A person may be a moron or an imbecile if he is lacking in judgment; but with good judgment he can never be either. Indeed the rest of the intellectual faculties seem of little importance in comparison with judgment. What does it matter, for example, whether the organs of sense function normally? Of what import that certain ones are hyperesthetic, or that others are anesthetic or are weakened? Laura Bridgman, Helen Keller and their fellow-unfortunates were blind as well as deaf, but this did not prevent them from being very intelligent. Certainly this is demonstrative proof that the total or even partial integrity of the senses does not form a mental factor equal to judgment. We may measure the acuteness of the sensibility of subjects; nothing could be easier. But we should do this, not so much to find out the state of their sensibility as to learn the exactitude of their judgment.

[Ophiolite]

What I am expressing is moral indignation at the fact that intelligence testing has been used to forcibly sterilize, deport, maim and even commit acts of racially motivated genocide against others. Maybe you would react the same way if you were well-versed in the history of IQ, depending on whether you had a conscience or not.

 

I strongly suggest that you read up on the history of IQ.

I understand that this is a subject upon which you feel very strongly. I have observed, over many decades, that unless one has the oratorical powers of a Martin Luther King, then openly expressed moral outrage will turn people away from your argument. Should it be this way? That is irrelevant; that is the way things are.

 

From a pragmatic point of view, if you wish to persuade people as to the rightness of your thesis, the tangible emotion will act against you. Of course, if you are simply indulging in a rant against bigots, racists and fools, then I supppose the openly expressed emotion is essential. I will assume you actually wish to change people's views. In that case I recommend, for a second time, toning down your rhetoric.

 

It probably helps your argument very little that you make so many assumptions about those you are debating against and that you openly insult them. In my own case you have levelled these two charges:

 

1) Strongly implied that I lack a conscience and am therefore, at best, immoral.

2) Assumed I have not read up on the history of IQ testing and application.

 

It is quite possible to have explored the history of IQ and yet to reach a different conclusion from yourself. I am not condemning you for the conclusions you have reached. (I am not even saying the conclusions are different from my own conclusions. You have, in what seems to be an emotional haze, assumed they are.) I would appreciate it if you refrain from moral condemnation of my views on the matter when I have not expressed them and when you are ignorant of my own experiences relating to IQ testing.

 

In that regard here is a short story. In the 1950s the Scottish Education Department tested all schoolchildren at the end of their primary education in order to stream them into an appropriate secondary school. This 11+ testing included an IQ test. Indeed it was the central and major part of the scheme.

 

On this test I scored 108, barely above average. My parents were told on this basis not to expect anything of me academically. I might manage to scrape a couple of 'O' levels, but any thoughts of continuing to fifth and sixth year of secondary school and sitting for Highers, should be abandoned.

 

Without working too hard I got nine 'O' levels and five highers. Also, with minimal effort, I got an upper second class honours degree.

 

Ten years later, as part of a work related process my IQ was tested again. It was in the mid 140s.

 

Having been a potential victim of the testing/labelling process you find so abhorrent I find it amusing that you condemn my ignorance on the matter and choose to question my moral credentials. I say amused, because I think that is preferable to being enraged. There has been enough of that in this thread already.

[Abdul-Aziz]

If IQ's are meaningless, then what does it mean for a person with an IQ of 50 cannot take care of his/herself. And this is very well documented, that people with lower IQ's learn much more slowly and lack self-help skills in general....

 

Actually, just because a person is assigned an IQ of 50 does not necessarily mean that they cannot look after themselves or are somehow mentally delayed. Sometimes, people obtain IQs of 50 because of cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic barriers to test performance, yet are fully capable of looking after themselves. Other people may perform poorly on an IQ test because of boredom, fatigue, inadequate motivation, or lack of interest in the task at hand, yet possess enormous practical sense and excellent life skills. People may perform poorly on IQ tests, and exhibit tremendous virtuosity, even genius, in such things as chess playing, music, financial investment, or advanced mathematical computation. Still others, because of conduct disorders such as ADHD, may be of normal, above average, or even gifted intelligence, but because of an inability to sit still or concentrate for any length of time, are only able to score a low IQ.

 

In reality, assigning a person an IQ of 50, 60, 110, or even 200 is virtually meaningless. A person can be without any book smarts whatsoever, but can be more street savvy and have greater practical life skills than any Ph.d. Conversely, some people are late bloomers, like Albert Einstein. They have low IQs and are slow learners throughout childhood and adolescence, but when they reach adulthood, they ascend the heights of intellectual brilliance.

 

To sum up, the lack of one-to-one correspondence between intelligence testing and the reality it is designed to measure is one reason why IQ tests should be done away with; it is clear that IQ testing hurts much more than it helps.

 

I understand that this is a subject upon which you feel very strongly. I have observed, over many decades, that unless one has the oratorical powers of a Martin Luther King, then openly expressed moral outrage will turn people away from your argument. Should it be this way? That is irrelevant; that is the way things are.

 

From a pragmatic point of view, if you wish to persuade people as to the rightness of your thesis, the tangible emotion will act against you. Of course, if you are simply indulging in a rant against bigots, racists and fools, then I supppose the openly expressed emotion is essential. I will assume you actually wish to change people's views. In that case I recommend, for a second time, toning down your rhetoric.

 

It probably helps your argument very little that you make so many assumptions about those you are debating against and that you openly insult them. In my own case you have levelled these two charges:

 

1) Strongly implied that I lack a conscience and am therefore, at best, immoral.

2) Assumed I have not read up on the history of IQ testing and application.

 

It is quite possible to have explored the history of IQ and yet to reach a different conclusion from yourself. I am not condemning you for the conclusions you have reached. (I am not even saying the conclusions are different from my own conclusions. You have, in what seems to be an emotional haze, assumed they are.) I would appreciate it if you refrain from moral condemnation of my views on the matter when I have not expressed them and when you are ignorant of my own experiences relating to IQ testing.

 

I did not realize that you had been victimized by the testing/labelling process that so many of us are struggling against on an international level. My sincerest apologies for being so hasty in the exercise of my own personal judgment. I was so busy lashing out at the whole foul business of intelligence testing, that I completely lost track of the original cause I had been fighting for, and managed to utter a few rash words at a moment's lapse in reason. When I was wallowing in my own rhetorical excesses, I should have been welcoming you as a comrade with open arms. It would have been better if you had provided me with a personal introduction as a means of preventing such future misunderstandings. But alas, who knows? Again, I offer my sincerest apologies.

 

As for rhetoric, I sincerely believe that the best mode of spreading awareness is by directly challenging people, stimulating their imaginations, and forcing them to confront life's little unpleasantries head-on. Have you not read Plato's Allegory of the Cave from The Republic? Most men spend their lives in a state of the most blissful darkness; indifferent to the world and callous towards the sufferings of others around them; ceaselessly moving from one sensual pleasure to the next. My goal is to awaken the somnambulist from his drunken stupor and instil within his spirit a passion for justice. And in my experience, this is best done not with a whimper, but with a loud bang, so that their eyes may be opened.

 

In that regard here is a short story. In the 1950s the Scottish Education Department tested all schoolchildren at the end of their primary education in order to stream them into an appropriate secondary school. This 11+ testing included an IQ test. Indeed it was the central and major part of the scheme.

 

On this test I scored 108, barely above average. My parents were told on this basis not to expect anything of me academically. I might manage to scrape a couple of 'O' levels, but any thoughts of continuing to fifth and sixth year of secondary school and sitting for Highers, should be abandoned.

 

Without working too hard I got nine 'O' levels and five highers. Also, with minimal effort, I got an upper second class honours degree.

 

Ten years later, as part of a work related process my IQ was tested again. It was in the mid 140s.

 

Having been a potential victim of the testing/labelling process you find so abhorrent I find it amusing that you condemn my ignorance on the matter and choose to question my moral credentials. I say amused, because I think that is preferable to being enraged. There has been enough of that in this thread already.

 

As I have said many times before, IQ hurts more than it helps. I have seen people have their lives utterly destroyed by the assignment of a two or three digit number to the quality of their intellects. The concept of IQ seems to be more of an instrument for bigots and prudes (because yes, that is what they are) to pat themselves on the back with, assure themselves of how virtuous they are, and degrade others in the process.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Abdul-Aziz
multiple post merged

[Ophiolite]

I did not realize that you had been victimized by the testing/labelling process that so many of us are struggling against on an international level..

No, I was not victimised. Out of a sincere desire to help me find a productive place in society my teachers, specifically, and the educational establishment, in general, used the best tool then available to them to try to plan my future education. Just because some aberration in that tool lead, apparently, to a misreading of my 'true' intelligence can hardly be described as victimisation. Indeed, recalling at a distance of many decades the efforts of my teachers I feel offended on their behalf that you level such a charge at them.

 

 

My sincerest apologies for being so hasty in the exercise of my own personal judgment.

Apology fully accepted. You might wish to consider whether others who have participated in this thread may also merit an apology.

I should have been welcoming you as a comrade with open arms. It would have been better if you had provided me with a personal introduction as a means of preventing such future misunderstandings. .

Welcoming with open arms? I think not, for I think you are mistaken. Secondly my personal experience in this is really largely irrelevant. The issue is too important to be swayed by personal, anecdotal evidence.

 

I believe myself to be more intelligent than the majority of people I meet. I also meet the occasional person in whom I am in awe of. I have no doubt that there is a wide range of intelligence in the population. I am also certain that a large part of this is genetic and a large part is environmental.

As for rhetoric, I sincerely believe that the best mode of spreading awareness is by directly challenging people, stimulating their imaginations, and forcing them to confront life's little unpleasantries head-on.

But all you have been doing is insulting peoples morals, insulting their knowledge, and - dare I say it - insulting their intelligence.You have taken a position in a way that invites disagreement. If you can't see this perhaps you aren't as smart as you think you are.

I have seen people have their lives utterly destroyed by the assignment of a two or three digit number to the quality of their intellects.

And how exactly has this happened? What was the impact on me? I got to do woodwork instead of Latin. . Disaster? I think not.

[Abdul-Aziz]

No, I was not victimised. Out of a sincere desire to help me find a productive place in society my teachers, specifically, and the educational establishment, in general, used the best tool then available to them to try to plan my future education. Just because some aberration in that tool lead, apparently, to a misreading of my 'true' intelligence can hardly be described as victimisation. Indeed, recalling at a distance of many decades the efforts of my teachers I feel offended on their behalf that you level such a charge at them.

 

Well, many people have been victimized by IQ and this has been extensively documented by historians. In the past, people were forcibly sterilized and even roasted alive in the crematoria because of receiving low IQ scores. Even today, many otherwise normal people are still being misdiagnosed as mentally challenged and forced into special education classes against their will. So you see, the problems with intelligence testing are more than just mere aberrations, but a reflection of the fact that on a deeper mathematical, scientific level, the concept of IQ is a deeply flawed instrument to begin with, notwithstanding the good intentions of those who employ it as a measure of intelligence.

 

Apology fully accepted. You might wish to consider whether others who have participated in this thread may also merit an apology.

 

I'm not so sure of that, considering that I was the one insulted first. Besides, it's a debate where people are expected to become passionate over the issues. Such irregularities should only be expected.

 

Welcoming with open arms? I think not, for I think you are mistaken. Secondly my personal experience in this is really largely irrelevant. The issue is too important to be swayed by personal, anecdotal evidence.

 

Many lives are at stake because of the issue of intelligence testing and many people have been personally affected by it. I would not discount personal experience because it is one way of evaluating the tremendous harm done by the concept of IQ.

 

I believe myself to be more intelligent than the majority of people I meet. I also meet the occasional person in whom I am in awe of. I have no doubt that there is a wide range of intelligence in the population.

 

Your perceived level of intelligence is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. The fact that you feel a need to blow your own trumpet in the course of a discussion about IQ suggests that you are desperately trying to affirm something that obviously isn't there. The subject of psychometric testing is a serious enough issue as it is; please, there is no need for arrogance.

 

I am also certain that a large part of this is genetic and a large part is environmental.

 

With this, I strongly agree. The influence of nature and nurture is 50/50.

 

But all you have been doing is insulting peoples morals, insulting their knowledge, and - dare I say it - insulting their intelligence.

 

I have done no such thing. If anything, people insulted me first and I remained stoic throughout. I have done nothing but treat everyone here with respect and decency. You are reading far too much into a few hasty words.

 

You have taken a position in a way that invites disagreement.

 

Well, you do realize that this is a discussion, right? Sooner or later, people are going to disagree with something. There's an old saying: If you can't take the heat, get out of the frying pan.

 

If you can't see this perhaps you aren't as smart as you think you are..

 

Well, isn't this ironic. You accuse me of being insulting, yet you insult me in turn. Not only do you insult me, but you put words into my mouth as well. Where did I ever blow my own trumpet? The fact of the matter is that I have done absolutely nothing of the sort. You know, the famous French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal once remarked: Do you wish people to think well of you? Don't speak well of yourself.

 

Humility is the foundation of all virtue. You would do well to heed those words.

 

And how exactly has this happened? What was the impact on me? I got to do woodwork instead of Latin. . Disaster? I think not.

 

Well, you obviously have had it rather quite easy. You should be grateful, because many others have not been granted the same kind of good fortune.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Abdul-Aziz

[Mokele]

Speaking only of the US educational system, I'm not aware of any extant system where IQ plays a role, though obviously others may know of such. Testing to get into upper level classes, etc, has always been handled by means of standardized tests that more resemble the SAT and ACT style tests than IQ tests, in my experience.

 

Do we even use IQ for much of anything anymore? I can't think of anything I've encountered.

 

Mokele

[Abdul-Aziz]

Speaking only of the US educational system, I'm not aware of any extant system where IQ plays a role, though obviously others may know of such. Testing to get into upper level classes, etc, has always been handled by means of standardized tests that more resemble the SAT and ACT style tests than IQ tests, in my experience.

 

Do we even use IQ for much of anything anymore? I can't think of anything I've encountered.

 

Mokele

 

I believe that it is still used widely by psychologists, particularly in America, Canada, Great Britain, and continental Europe, as a means of diagnosing learning disabilities, mental retardation, and giftedness. Either a traditional IQ test is administered, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), or a more g-loaded test, such as Raven's Progressive Matrices. In America, I believe that SAT/ACT tests have largely replaced IQ tests as an entrance requirement for colleges/universities. As I do not live in the USA, I am not sure. However, what is disturbing is that a number of psychometricians are even trying to correlate Spearman's g with the various subtest categories of the SAT/ACT. White/male gender supremacists such as J. Taylor (USA), J.P. Rushton (Canada), and R. Lynn (United Kingdom) still use the concept of IQ as a means of providing justification for their pet theories of racial/gender-based intellectual superiority.

[CharonY]

At least in Germany I have not seen it used either. At least not in normal educational settings. Maybe in assessment centers...

[bob000555]

Good god Abdul-Aziz’s argument is essentially a series of straw man, and logically empty arguments.

 

The straw-mans are almost always along the lines of attempting to “refute” and argument simply by calling the arguer a racist or crypto-Nazi. Even if the respected psychologists whom he considers racists or Nazis because their research contradicts his beliefs where racists or Nazis it would not disprove their research or even discredit it. In fact some of the Nazis where such good scientists that the US risked causing an international incident to smuggle Nazi scientists into the US in Operation Paperclip. These scientists proceeded to do such obviously “racist/male dominate” things as fathering the space program (Wernher Von Braun).

 

Secondly he counters peoples arguments by simply saying the are “missing the [ill-defined] point” the proceeding to change or reaffirm his original argument. When a person asserts an “if a then b” relationship if someone points out a counterexample you can not proceed to simply change the argument and then act as though nothing happened you have to choices you can either admit your wrong or add a clause “c” to your argument so that it becomes “if a then b, if and only if c” such that c invalidates the counter example. It appears that the only “c” would be “if and only if it supports Abdul-Aziz’s argument”.

 

Abdul’s primary argument appears to have changed throughout the discussion starting out as attempting to invalidate the entire concept of IQ then sifting to saying that IQ is fine as long as it is used for “it’s original intent”(which is laughable considering in his original post Abdul claims the concept of IQ was invented by “racist, sexist bigots”)

 

I move that this thread be moved to pseudoscience and speculations for the fallowing reasons:

 

Despite massive evidence to the contrary including a quote from the definitive textbook on psychology the original poster has refused to acknowledge the high degree of heritability involved in intelligence.

 

The original poster is attempting to rewrite the generally accepted practices of psychology insisting that a trait can not be considered heritable unless the specific genes involved can be found, further claiming that it is not a statistically derived measurement. The definition of heritability according to “Psychology” eighth edition by Doctor David G. Meyers is “The proportion of variability among individuals that we can attribute to genes. The heritability of a trait may very depending on the range of populations and environments studied.” Absolutely no mention of the of the necessity of finding specific gene involved is mentioned either in the definition or in the chapter on “Behavioral Genetics and Evolutionary Psychology.”

 

Despite repeated insistence that stop doing so the original poster has attempted to use insults and emotions as scientific arguments. These have ranged from straw mans attempting to discredited studies by calling the researcher a “neo-Nazi” to deliberately insulting posts accusing fellow forum members(namely me) of neo-Nazism(I am of Jewish descent and my relatives where forced to flee Russia during the German invasion.)

 

In all I would say that the chance that the original poster is a troll is very high.

Edited December 24, 2008 by bob000555

[DJBruce]

Speaking only of the US educational system, I'm not aware of any extant system where IQ plays a role, though obviously others may know of such. Testing to get into upper level classes, etc, has always been handled by means of standardized tests that more resemble the SAT and ACT style tests than IQ tests, in my experience.

 

Do we even use IQ for much of anything anymore? I can't think of anything I've encountered.

 

Mokele

 

My experience is that yes it is ocasionally used. I was given an IQ test when I was in 1st grade which showed that I was learning impaired in reading and writing. Yet all this meant was that I was offer more oppurtunities for help, such as one on one teaching. Now ten years after that I am one of the top students in my AP English and Literature Course. So I believe IQ test are still used to help identify students who may need specialized help.

 

As for the debate on the concept of IQ tests, I feel that although IQ like all tests are not perfect they are an incredible usefull tool. IQ in my opinion has been a long tested method and theory that can not be refuted simple by claiming that certain scientists were racist nor simply stating that scientfic conjectures based on sound research are void without citing proper scientfic evidence.

[Ophiolite]

In the past, people were forcibly sterilized and even roasted alive in the crematoria because of receiving low IQ scores.

This is a truly bizarre statement. They were slaughtered because Hitler was a warped meglomaniac. You might as well argue that it was the fault of the Jews for being Jews that led to their slaughter. If IQ tests were abandoned then Hitler could not have killed the less intelligent. If Judaism was abandoned Hitler could not have killed the Jews.

Even today, many otherwise normal people are still being misdiagnosed as mentally challenged and forced into special education classes against their will.

Really? Some examples please. I am aware of instances where the children of friends have been given special classes to help overconme their 'mental challenges'. The friends have no doubt that these mental challenges exist, even though the children are 'normal' in all other respects. They are delighted that the special classes are available and report upon the benefits to their children of attending these.

I'm not so sure of that, considering that I was the one insulted first. Besides, it's a debate where people are expected to become passionate over the issues. Such irregularities should only be expected.

You implicitly insulted many readers by your 'if you do not agree with me you are a racist bigot' approach in your opening post.

 

You make this statement:

I would not discount personal experience because it is one way of evaluating the tremendous harm done by the concept of IQ.

Then in the next paragraph you tell me

Your perceived level of intelligence is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

You are rather picking and choosing, aren't you?

The fact that you feel a need to blow your own trumpet in the course of a discussion about IQ suggests that you are desperately trying to affirm something that obviously isn't there. The subject of psychometric testing is a serious enough issue as it is; please, there is no need for arrogance.

Please don't distort my words, nor be so hypocritical. You were quite happy to 'welcome me as a brother in arms' and take my experiences with IQ testing as objective and relevant previously. Now I am arguing against your position I have suddenly become arrogant.

Far from being arrogant I actually find myself to be rather inept in matters of intellect. However, objectively I find the majority of persons I am in contact with are even more inept. Do you want me to lie to myself?

 

The whole point of bringing up my personal situation was to emphasis my belief that intelligence between individuals does vary. I understand that you would agree with this general statement.

With this, I strongly agree. The influence of nature and nurture is 50/50.

This does not match up with your previous statements.

all human beings (provided they are neither mentally nor physically disabled) have the same innate capacity for high intellectual/creative achievement throughout the life cycle.

 

In a sense, everyone is a potential Einstein, minus the influence of external variables of course.

 

While I do not discount the influence of genetics over the development of the human personality, I believe genetic influence is obviously quite minimal, with the influence of external variables being considerably more important.

 

So which is it? 50:50, or nurture being "considerably more important".

Well, isn't this ironic. You accuse me of being insulting, yet you insult me in turn.

This small icon - - indicates that the remark is intended humourusly. It was designed to defuse tensions that might be arising from our differing opinions. Perhaps you feel that humour has no place in a serious discussion. If so that would be another differing opinion.

Humility is the foundation of all virtue. You would do well to heed those words..

Thank you for your advice. I shall give it appropriate attention.

Well, you obviously have had it rather quite easy. You should be grateful, because many others have not been granted the same kind of good fortune.

Good fortune is not granted, but is worked for.

[Abdul-Aziz]

Good god Abdul-Aziz’s argument is essentially a series of straw man, and logically empty arguments.

 

I suspect that my arguments are only "logically empty", "straw man" arguments because you have not been able to refute them with a single shred of credible evidence.

 

The straw-mans are almost always along the lines of attempting to “refute” and argument simply by calling the arguer a racist or crypto-Nazi. Even if the respected psychologists whom he considers racists or Nazis because their research contradicts his beliefs where racists or Nazis it would not disprove their research or even discredit it.

 

Your accusation that I refute arguments by calling others "racist" or "crypto-Nazi" is both libellous and absolutely without foundation. I have always presented a substantial amount of scientific research defending my position, something you have repeatedly failed to do.

 

I have openly referred to Thomas Bouchard as a neo-Nazi because of his strong ties to the Pioneer Fund, a white supremacist organization dedicated to uncovering scientific evidence in support of white racial superiority. Thomas Bouchard has made numerous statements in support of white racial superiority in the past, as well as having intimate connections with prominent neo-Nazis and white supremacists, such as Linda Gottfredson, Richard Lynn, and Arthur Jensen. Moreover, the reason why Thomas Bouchard receives massive funding from the Pioneer Fund is because his research was designed to provide scientific justification for the racist, white supremacist ideology upheld by the current president of the Pioneer Fund, J.P. "penis size equals brain size" Rushton.

 

In fact some of the Nazis where such good scientists that the US risked causing an international incident to smuggle Nazi scientists into the US in Operation Paperclip. These scientists proceeded to do such obviously “racist/male dominate” things as fathering the space program (Wernher Von Braun).

 

To compare Wernher Von Braun with Thomas Bouchard is utterly ridiculous. Von Braun had renounced his Nazi beliefs after his surrender to the Americans during WWII. After the war, he managed to publicly denounce Hitler for his crimes. Von Braun never advocated white racial superiority, neither did he conduct research with the express intention of providing a scientific basis for the doctrine of white supremacy. On the other hand, Thomas Bouchard is a public racist who not only associates with white supremacists, but whose research serves one purpose and one purpose only: providing scientific justification for the ideology of white racial superiority as advocated by the Pioneer Fund.

 

Secondly he counters peoples arguments by simply saying the are “missing the [ill-defined] point” the proceeding to change or reaffirm his original argument. When a person asserts an “if a then b” relationship if someone points out a counterexample you can not proceed to simply change the argument and then act as though nothing happened you have to choices you can either admit your wrong or add a clause “c” to your argument so that it becomes “if a then b, if and only if c” such that c invalidates the counter example. It appears that the only “c” would be “if and only if it supports Abdul-Aziz’s argument”.

 

The above paragraph is nothing but incomprehensible gibberish. As I have explained before, I have provided a tremendous amount of scientific data supporting my position, whereas you have provided virtually nothing substantiating anything you have had to say.

 

Abdul’s primary argument appears to have changed throughout the discussion starting out as attempting to invalidate the entire concept of IQ then sifting to saying that IQ is fine as long as it is used for “it’s original intent”(which is laughable considering in his original post Abdul claims the concept of IQ was invented by “racist, sexist bigots”)

 

My argument has remained the same throughout. The original tests produced by Alfred Binet were not designed to measure intelligence. Although the test developed by Binet is the precursor of the modern IQ test, the concept of IQ as an objective measure of intelligence was actually ideologically formulated by men such as Charles Spearman and Lewis Terman in the early half of the twentieth century.

 

I move that this thread be moved to pseudoscience and speculations for the fallowing reasons:

 

Ah, yes! My thread should be moved to the pseudoscience forum because it directly refutes some of your most cherished beliefs about human nature. How delightfully fascist of you!

 

Despite massive evidence to the contrary including a quote from the definitive textbook on psychology the original poster has refused to acknowledge the high degree of heritability involved in intelligence.

 

Despite your insistence to the contrary, you have not provided a single shred of credible evidence demonstrating that there is a "high degree of heritability involved in intelligence". You do realize this, don't you?

 

The original poster is attempting to rewrite the generally accepted practices of psychology insisting that a trait can not be considered heritable unless the specific genes involved can be found, further claiming that it is not a statistically derived measurement. The definition of heritability according to “Psychology” eighth edition by Doctor David G. Meyers is “The proportion of variability among individuals that we can attribute to genes. The heritability of a trait may very depending on the range of populations and environments studied.” Absolutely no mention of the of the necessity of finding specific gene involved is mentioned either in the definition or in the chapter on “Behavioral Genetics and Evolutionary Psychology.”

 

David G. Myers is a social scientist who has embraced a number of views advocated by the controversial school of evolutionary psychology. "Evopsych" is a relatively new discipline that specializes in providing a biological determinist approach, using simplistic evolutionary "just so" stories, in its explanation of the complexities of human social behaviour. It should come as no surprise that Myers would interpret certain aspects of the psychological sciences through a genetic determinist, neo-Social Darwinist lens, a perspective that is vigorously contested by the majority of modern psychologists. However, it should be pointed out that Myers also acknowledges environmental explanations of human social behaviour as well.

 

Because causal genes/multi-allelic systems that code for specific heritable traits have not been isolated, let alone discovered, most studies that provide heritability estimates are based on speculation and untestable hypothesis. The difficulty in locating such genetic mechanisms simply demonstrates the enormous complexity of gene-gene interactions in the physiological development of human phenotypic variance. This means that human trait distribution cannot be fully comprehended from a purely reductionistic point of view. In addition, estimates of heritability, especially given the fact that genotype-environment interactions cannot be minimized, are really pointless exercises in numerology, and certainly not warranted by the fragmentary evidence provided by quantitative genetic analysis.

 

Despite repeated insistence that stop doing so the original poster has attempted to use insults and emotions as scientific arguments. These have ranged from straw mans attempting to discredited studies by calling the researcher a “neo-Nazi” to deliberately insulting posts accusing fellow forum members(namely me) of neo-Nazism(I am of Jewish descent and my relatives where forced to flee Russia during the German invasion.)

 

I have defended my arguments with verifiable scientific research, whereas you have defended yourself using ad hominem arguments and pejorative comments. You have stated that I have accused you of being a neo-Nazi; this is an egregious lie that cannot be proven. As I said before, the fact that you have gone out of your way to defend the pseudo-scientific research of white supremacists such as Thomas Bouchard reflects very negatively on what kind of person you are.

 

In all I would say that the chance that the original poster is a troll is very high.

 

I have treated you with nothing but respect and decency, yet you turn around and insult me for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Unable to defend your own position by using logical argument and scientific evidence, you resort to juvenile name-calling instead. As the above quotation clearly demonstrates, you are the only person on this thread who has resorted to emotion and ad hominem rhetoric as a means of rebuttal.

 

This is a truly bizarre statement. They were slaughtered because Hitler was a warped meglomaniac. You might as well argue that it was the fault of the Jews for being Jews that led to their slaughter. If IQ tests were abandoned then Hitler could not have killed the less intelligent. If Judaism was abandoned Hitler could not have killed the Jews.

 

Your ignorance of the history of IQ testing is truly astounding. As a matter of fact, intelligence tests were used extensively in Nazi Germany as a means of determining who was and wasn't mentally retarded. Those who were deemed mentally retarded were then confined to psychiatric hospitals and eventually shipped to extermination camps.

 

Really? Some examples please. I am aware of instances where the children of friends have been given special classes to help overconme their 'mental challenges'. The friends have no doubt that these mental challenges exist, even though the children are 'normal' in all other respects. They are delighted that the special classes are available and report upon the benefits to their children of attending these.

 

Actually, in America and Great Britain, minority children are frequently misdiagnosed as mentally retarded or learning disabled through standardized intelligence testing. In fact, it has become a notorious fact of daily life that minority children, who are otherwise normal in terms of intellectual and emotional development, are overrepresented in special education classes.

 

It was only through the research of JR Mercer (1971) that people finally began to realize that minority children in the USA were being misdiagnosed/mislabeled as mentally retarded and disproportionately enrolled in special education classes. The mislabeling of minority children is also discussed to some extent in The Psychological Testing of American Minorities (1998) by Ronald J. Samuda.

 

Again my criticism remains the same:

 

Your ignorance of the history of IQ testing is shocking! I strongly suggest that you read up on the history of IQ.

 

You implicitly insulted many readers by your 'if you do not agree with me you are a racist bigot' approach in your opening post.

 

Anyone who believes that one "race" (being a socially constructed division of humanity) is superior to another "race" is a racist.

 

You make this statement:

 

Then in the next paragraph you tell me

You are rather picking and choosing, aren't you?

Please don't distort my words, nor be so hypocritical. You were quite happy to 'welcome me as a brother in arms' and take my experiences with IQ testing as objective and relevant previously. Now I am arguing against your position I have suddenly become arrogant.

Far from being arrogant I actually find myself to be rather inept in matters of intellect. However, objectively I find the majority of persons I am in contact with are even more inept. Do you want me to lie to myself?

 

The fact that you are needlessly insisting on your own superior intelligence (and still doing so I might add!) suggests that you are very arrogant in your dealings with others. Why else would you describe the majority of persons you meet on a daily basis as being inept, other than because you look down upon them with contempt and false pity? Is this not the very definition of arrogance?

 

The whole point of bringing up my personal situation was to emphasis my belief that intelligence between individuals does vary. I understand that you would agree with this general statement.

This does not match up with your previous statements.

all human beings (provided they are neither mentally nor physically disabled) have the same innate capacity for high intellectual/creative achievement throughout the life cycle.

 

In a sense, everyone is a potential Einstein, minus the influence of external variables of course.

 

While I do not discount the influence of genetics over the development of the human personality, I believe genetic influence is obviously quite minimal, with the influence of external variables being considerably more important.

 

So which is it? 50:50, or nurture being "considerably more important".

 

By describing the nature-nurture component of human social behaviour as 50/50 (metaphorically speaking), I am saying that the contributions of both nature and nurture are inextricably intertwined and, because of the great complexity and multidimensional nature of genotype-environment interactions, cannot be disentangled and partitioned into exact percentages. However, heritability need not be associated with immutability because even the genome can be modified through exposure to environmental factors, meaning that the presence of external variables can override genetic programming.

 

This small icon - - indicates that the remark is intended humourusly. It was designed to defuse tensions that might be arising from our differing opinions. Perhaps you feel that humour has no place in a serious discussion. If so that would be another differing opinion.

 

Well, you have a very strange way of defusing tension.

 

Thank you for your advice. I shall give it appropriate attention.

 

A little humility goes a long way.

 

Good fortune is not granted, but is worked for.

 

Then how do you explain inherited wealth and lottery winners?

Edited December 25, 2008 by Abdul-Aziz
multiple post merged

[Ophiolite]

Your ignorance of the history of IQ testing is truly astounding. As a matter of fact, intelligence tests were used extensively in Nazi Germany as a means of determining who was and wasn't mentally retarded. Those who were deemed mentally retarded were then confined to psychiatric hospitals and eventually shipped to extermination camps.

You have quite missed my central point. These deaths were due to a misapplication of IQ tests, which was a consequence of Hitler's warped perception of reality. By the same argument we can say that the Judaism is wrong because it directly led to the deaths of six million people in concentration camps!!!

 

Many ideas have been misapplied. If we follow your logic we should abandon evolutionary theory since it led, inevitably, to the concept of eugenics.Please tell me why you are willing to continue the use of evolutionary theory, but demand the abandonment of IQ testing?

 

 

Again my criticism remains the same:

Your ignorance of the history of IQ testing is shocking! I strongly suggest that you read up on the history of IQ.

You haven't read Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People, have you?

Anyone who believes that one "race" (being a socially constructed division of humanity) is superior to another "race" is a racist.

However, you were implicitly defining a racist as anyone who did not agree with you. And later you accuse me of arrogance.

 

It is a slight deviation, but I guess, by your definition, I am a racist. I am a keen athletics fan (track and field, for those who use US terminology)and I have no doubt that some genetic characteristic has granted those of West African origin, superlative fast twitch muscles. No white man has ever run under 10.0s for the 100m. No asian has ever run under 10.0s for the 100m. No East African has ever run under 10.0s for the 100m.

 

As a racist, according to you, I celebrate the achievements of Jesse Owens in the Berlin Olympics of 1936. Now ask those guys to run over 800m and they are just crap!

 

Back to reality. Race is, as you say, a somewhat artificial construct. We've been interbreeding as a species for a considerable time before cut price airlines provided the opportunity. Nevertheless there are differences between individuals and I see absolutley no reason there would not be differences between 'races', however those might be defined. According to you that makes me a racist.

 

According to me that makes me a realist. What would make me a racist would be if I started to categorise those differences as 'good' and 'bad' and deliberately emphasised those where 'my race' was 'better'. We can recognise differences, we can celebrate differences, we don't need to hide them because we are to immature to handle their existence.

 

Why else would you describe the majority of persons you meet on a daily basis as being inept, other than because you look down upon them with contempt and false pity? Is this not the very definition of arrogance?

I look at the whole human species, our wars, our disagreements, our illogical thinking. I see the incompetence, the silly mistakes, the ineptness. And then I look at what we have achieved and think 'Bloody hell, that's not bad for a bunch of monkeys who decided to give up high rise living."

But I still wonder (in both sense of the word) how we managed to achieve it given how inept we actually are. I think you'll find that perspective is the very essence of humility, not its reverse.

 

 

By describing the nature-nurture component of human social behaviour as 50/50 (metaphorically speaking), I am saying that the contributions of both nature and nurture are inextricably intertwined and, because of the great complexity and multidimensional nature of genotype-environment interactions, cannot be disentangled and partitioned into exact percentages. However, heritability need not be associated with immutability because even the genome can be modified through exposure to environmental factors, meaning that the presence of external variables can override genetic programming.

Regretably the smilie icon for backpeddling does not appear among the options. You are trying to bury your original defintive declarations in a smokescreen of waffle. Fortunately your original statements are still there for all of us to read.

 

Abdul-Aziz,

I suspect our discussion has outlived its value. You have raised some valid concerns about IQ testing, but these concerns have been relegated to a side issue by two things. Your unfortunate emotional loading of your arguments; your absolutist statements in which you have erected strawmen to attack.

I shall follow the discussion, if it continues, with interest, but I do not plan to take any further part in it. Thank you for your time.

Ophiolite

[Abdul-Aziz]

You have quite missed my central point. These deaths were due to a misapplication of IQ tests, which was a consequence of Hitler's warped perception of reality. By the same argument we can say that the Judaism is wrong because it directly led to the deaths of six million people in concentration camps!!!

 

Many ideas have been misapplied. If we follow your logic we should abandon evolutionary theory since it led, inevitably, to the concept of eugenics.Please tell me why you are willing to continue the use of evolutionary theory, but demand the abandonment of IQ testing?

 

Point taken. However, my initial argument has been that the original purpose of psychometric testing had been distorted long before the rise of the Third Reich, when a number of psychometricians, in the early years of the twentieth century, began correlating intelligence tests with the concept of g. They interpreted the test scores as being objective measures of native intelligence, which was something that the original test designer, Alfred Binet, had not intended.

 

You haven't read Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People, have you?

 

You haven't read up on the history of IQ testing, have you?

 

However, you were implicitly defining a racist as anyone who did not agree with you. And later you accuse me of arrogance.

 

Not true. I have already defined a racist as someone who advocates the ethno-racial superiority of one group over another. I accused you of arrogance only because you began boasting about your "superior level of intelligence".

 

It is a slight deviation, but I guess, by your definition, I am a racist. I am a keen athletics fan (track and field, for those who use US terminology)and I have no doubt that some genetic characteristic has granted those of West African origin, superlative fast twitch muscles. No white man has ever run under 10.0s for the 100m. No asian has ever run under 10.0s for the 100m. No East African has ever run under 10.0s for the 100m.

 

As a racist, according to you, I celebrate the achievements of Jesse Owens in the Berlin Olympics of 1936. Now ask those guys to run over 800m and they are just crap!

 

Back to reality. Race is, as you say, a somewhat artificial construct. We've been interbreeding as a species for a considerable time before cut price airlines provided the opportunity. Nevertheless there are differences between individuals and I see absolutley no reason there would not be differences between 'races', however those might be defined. According to you that makes me a racist.

 

According to me that makes me a realist. What would make me a racist would be if I started to categorise those differences as 'good' and 'bad' and deliberately emphasised those where 'my race' was 'better'. We can recognise differences, we can celebrate differences, we don't need to hide them because we are to immature to handle their existence.

 

I acknowledge the existence of human biodiversity that is continuously distributed along a clinal gradient. However, the concept of "race", as it has been traditionally defined, is the belief that human beings can be classified into biologically discrete, geographically defined taxonomic categories. As such, I don't think there is sufficient evidence that supports this conventional view of "race". Although "race" is not a biological reality, it most certainly is a socio-cultural reality. Because of previous injustice and discrimination, I think we should recognize differences between "races" as socially constructed categories, however we must realize that these differences are socio-cultural/environmental in origin, not genetic.

 

I look at the whole human species, our wars, our disagreements, our illogical thinking. I see the incompetence, the silly mistakes, the ineptness. And then I look at what we have achieved and think 'Bloody hell, that's not bad for a bunch of monkeys who decided to give up high rise living."

But I still wonder (in both sense of the word) how we managed to achieve it given how inept we actually are. I think you'll find that perspective is the very essence of humility, not its reverse.

 

Well, I'm glad to see that you have adopted a much more sympathetic approach to both the sufferings and achievements of mankind.

 

Regretably the smilie icon for backpeddling does not appear among the options. You are trying to bury your original defintive declarations in a smokescreen of waffle. Fortunately your original statements are still there for all of us to read.

 

I was simply providing further clarification, and not obfuscation, of the issues at hand. Is this not what you asked me for?

 

Abdul-Aziz,

I suspect our discussion has outlived its value. You have raised some valid concerns about IQ testing, but these concerns have been relegated to a side issue by two things. Your unfortunate emotional loading of your arguments; your absolutist statements in which you have erected strawmen to attack.

I shall follow the discussion, if it continues, with interest, but I do not plan to take any further part in it. Thank you for your time.

Ophiolite

 

The only thing I did was provide an abundance of scientific evidence to ponder, nothing more. To say that I used strawman arguments or emotional rhetoric in my discussion of the nature of intelligence testing is a gross exaggeration; everything I had to say, I presented in a logical, internally self-consistent fashion, as should be clear from the thread itself.

 

Perhaps we shall meet again under more favourable circumstances...

[bob000555]

Abdul-Aziz,

I suspect our discussion has outlived its value. You have raised some valid concerns about IQ testing, but these concerns have been relegated to a side issue by two things. Your unfortunate emotional loading of your arguments; your absolutist statements in which you have erected strawmen to attack.

I shall follow the discussion, if it continues, with interest, but I do not plan to take any further part in it. Thank you for your time.

Ophiolite

 

I agree and shall no longer lend credit to this ridiculous conspiracy theory by continuing to reply.

 

Abdul-Aziz if you say something with some scientific merit instead of calling every source that proves you wrong racist I will respond. The notion that absolutely everyone, including the author of the textbook on psychology, is conspiring to uphold a racist system is preposterous. Please if all your going to contribute is ridiculous appeals to emotion, straw mans and conspiracy theories, leave the forum

[Copernicus_Meme]

The fact that you are needlessly insisting on your own superior intelligence (and still doing so I might add!) suggests that you are very arrogant in your dealings with others

 

It appears to me that you are projection your emotional frustration into it. For example, if I had told you I was much taller than people I would normaly meet, would I be arrogant and insisting on my own superior height? Of course not. While people do make arguments in the vein "I'm smarter therefor I am a better human", it doesn't mean that when stating an observed aspect one is necessarily arrogant.

 

On intelligence, if we step away from standardized testing to the realm of gifted people, can we agree that not every person has the same inherent potential of becoming a new Mozart or Gene Krupa (for a more recent example of gifted musician)?

As an off-shot on the standardized g, it is not as frequently correlated, ie gifted musical abilities and sense with high performance on standardized tests.

 

For example, and yes this is an anecdotal reference but only included as a curiosa. I have a cousin who, for as long as I can remember (yearly toddler years and forth), taught himself the guitar, drums and the piano. Now, we spent a lot of time together and I really tried to keep up with him, to even learn the basic beats. His ability was, as I am convinced, quite innate, to express himself and his senses through the ability to learn a variety of musical instruments, read notes without ever having been taught by anyone, pick scales from a half-busted tape, perfectly.

 

Now, it would be strange of all manners of notably innate traits as so would not include general cognitive ability as for mathematics for example, let's skip the standardized IQ format and just go with the observable ability. I do not care what enviromental variable is introduced, off all the people in my mathematics class the potential and deliverence thereof was anything but equal, for some it was as easy as picking a flower up from the side of the road, they hardly had to read the books or listen to the teacher, yet for others all the extra hours of number crunching just didn't help the fact that they did not have the cognitive ability suited for mathematics. Ergo, no we can not all become Einstein peers of ability and understanding, let alone deliverance.

Being different, wether innately or by enviromental factors alone is one thing, it does not necessarily mean that one is a better human being, worth more since "worth" is probably the most complex, subjective and multifacetted abstract word there is.

[Ophiolite]

Thank you for expressing clearly and concisely my exact thinking on this point.