Intelligent Quotient (IQ) testing is a gauge of mental capacity and an important method of testing mental retardation by professionals in today's society.



The following ranges, based on Standard Scores of intelligence tests, reflect the categories of the American Association of Mental Retardation, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV-TR, and the International Classification of Diseases-10:

Profound mental retardation Below 20
Severe mental retardation 20–34
Moderate mental retardation 35–49
Mild mental retardation 50–69
Borderline intellectual functioning 70–79

As you can gather from the quote above, IQ testing is accepted by all major medical associations and organizations as a gauge of one's intelligence and intellectual functioning. The lower one scores on an IQ test, the closer one is to mental retardation, and vice-versa.

The above is fact and cannot be argued. No one with an ounce of common sense would suggest that reality was anything to the contrary. There have certainly been historical cases of misuse and abuse of Intelligence Quotient in the past, in order to dehumanize ethnic groups particularly in a time of hardship or war, or ignorance; but by modern standards this is no longer the case. Citizens living in the same nation and speaking the same language are fairly tested and gauged side-by-side. Is there anyone dumb enough to disagree with this?

People with "high IQ's" tend to denounce the IQ test as a true gauge of intelligence.

This feels like some kind of crazy troll.

There is no true test of intelligence when you can teach people to score 10-20 points higher on it in just a few weeks. It's not like the person is actually getting that much smarter.

IQ is a test for mental retardation. The reason this works is because if you actually do score 69 or below on an IQ test, it means you have trouble performing mental aerobics that most people do all the time.

Now, just like any broad test, it's not perfect. There are some people who score low and aren't mentally retarded. BIG DEAL. Statistical outliers are EVERYWHERE. Stop using a freak occurrence as your only argument against the test.

However, a high score on an IQ test doesn't really mean anything. I know people with high IQ scores who are idiots. Maybe they are really good at imagining the way knots are tied inside their heads, but they are idiots, seriously.

I don't think IQ is a good way of measuring "intelligence", because you can't really measure something as arbitrary as "intelligence", but it's a good way of telling whether or not someone is mentally retarded.

One of the most widely renowned physicists, Richard Feynman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman), painter and author; An undeniable genius, had an IQ of 124.

Make of that what you will.

I've written extensively about IQ, so I don't think I'll be contributing too much to this thread.

I will point out a few things, however:

1) You should be aware that IQ scores are based on the population norm. The average score is arbitrarily set as "100", and then you tend to have relatively even distributions above and below it. To illustrate, if the majority was mentally handicapped (ie. by our current standards), then an "average" score (100) would indicate that you were mentally retarded. My point being: Nothing in an IQ score "calculates" whether someone is truly mentally handicapped, and to generalize, it does not offer any concrete indicator of someone's intelligence. Rather, an IQ of 70 was set as the legal and medical criterion for mental retardation, based on the norm, and based on how mentally handicapped people tended to perform on these tests. A score of 70 tends to be a good indicator of whether or not someone is retarded, but the score itself has no innate correlation with someone's cognitive ability.

2) IQ is not a static, determined number. This seems to be the most common misconception of laymen who discuss IQ, and ANY scientist will tell you that IQ is dynamic and can be influenced by a number of factors.

3) Living in the same nation and speaking the same language does not eliminate cultural bias in IQ testing. Within this nation, lifestyles and cultures can be completely incomparable, and although pidgin forms of English can be recognized as English, that does not mean that its speakers know the same level of English as those who speak "standard English".

Now, if you don't understand the implications of all of this information in regard to your original post...you should not be discussing IQ or intelligence at all.

There are several examples of folks with outrageously high IQs (150+) who amount to nothing in life, often taking menial jobs and having severe difficulty communicating with other people. "Intelligence" is itself vague. An IQ test is more a measure of one's ability to follow directions. True, it involves thinking, but, as other posters have pointed out, you can be "coached" to a higher IQ score in a week or two. Is a violin virtuoso "intelligent" in the same way that a master architect is? Or a great sculptor? Or a mathematician? Clearly not.

Mental retardation is the failure of a brain to function at a level which facilitates survival and communication with other humans. Thus, pegging it to a population average makes sense. In a world of Einsteins, you and I could be termed "mentally retarded." However, there is an argument to be made for a "floor value" of sorts; namely, mental retardation is when one does not have the mental capacity to take care of himself. I am on the fence between these viewpoints.

IQ test's don't work

Too many things affect IQ for it to be relevant to anything.

Iodized salt levels affect IQ:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/opinion/04kristof.html?_r=2

The IQ scores of most nations have been rising over the century. Humans don't evolve that fast, thus destroying the notion that IQ isn't heavily reliant on environment.
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell

also, stress makes you dumber:
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/12/15/hypertension-might-hinder-thinking.html

I could go on and on.

also, stress makes you dumber:
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/12/15/hypertension-might-hinder-thinking.html

I could go on and on.

Haha, yep. Exercise has been shown to grow (or regenerate, I can't remember which) brain cells, too.

I am a firm believer in IQ tests.
Can you train yourself to learn how to do the test better? Yes. Does that make you more intelligent? No. It means you have learned to cheat on the test and just like any other test learning to cheat doesn't make you know more.

The tests are meant to measures someone ability for complex problem solving and when you introduce someone to the test for the very first time some people simply score higher than others.

Is it true it can be affected by other things? Well, yes, but ask yourself how that is possible if IQ is not a measure of intellectual functions. What is it measuring that gets affected by things such as salt deficiency and being overstressed? It's obviously measuring some function in a humans thought process to be affected by such things.

I never got the whole "the average IQ is rising" argument. What's the point of even putting forward such an argument? Does it prove anything other than the average IQ is rising?

Does that even matter?
Everyone here has come in contact with people who they know are not as smart as them or as intelligent as them. Do you really need the IQ test to do what can be done within 5 minutes of speaking with a person? Some people are smarter than others. Get used to it.

Everyone here has come in contact with people who they know are not as smart as them or as intelligent as them. Do you really need the IQ test to do what can be done within 5 minutes of speaking with a person? Some people are smarter than others. Get used to it.

Everyone I've ever talked to in real life has found me to be pretty smart, for reasons I don't know, but in reality I'm a fucking moron. I also have a very pathetic IQ score.

The tests are meant to measures someone ability for complex problem solving and when you introduce someone to the test for the very first time some people simply score higher than others.

You really should avoid talking out of your ass so much. The Wechsler test (the most common IQ test nowadays) tests the following categories:

1. a Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)
2. a Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI)
3. a Working Memory Index (WMI)
4. a Processing Speed Index (PSI)
5. a composite, single full-scale IQ (FSIQ) score based on the combined scores
6. a General Ability Index (GAI) to identify general cognitive ability

A concise, correct description of the test would have been "It attempts to measure a subset of cognitive abilities."


Is it true it can be affected by other things? Well, yes, but ask yourself how that is possible if IQ is not a measure of intellectual functions. What is it measuring that gets affected by things such as salt deficiency and being overstressed? It's obviously measuring some function in a humans thought process to be affected by such things.

It is not measuring "some function". It attempts to quantify several cognitive functions.


I never got the whole "the average IQ is rising" argument. What's the point of even putting forward such an argument? Does it prove anything other than the average IQ is rising?

And this confirms that you don't know a thing about IQ or IQ tests. Simply put, it means that "average" people from past decades would have scored lower than average people of today, if they took our IQ tests. While you could qualify that as "lawl we're smarter", the reason we are "smarter" is because of the constantly progressing intellectual environment of our society. In other words, rising IQ scores is just yet another demonstration of the fact that IQ is not static or determined.


Does that even matter?
Everyone here has come in contact with people who they know are not as smart as them or as intelligent as them. Do you really need the IQ test to do what can be done within 5 minutes of speaking with a person? Some people are smarter than others. Get used to it.

In 5 minutes of speaking with someone you could determine whether they are more intelligent than you? Jesus...the nonsense just never stops with you, does it? As Sentinel put it "Is a violin virtuoso "intelligent" in the same way that a master architect is? Or a great sculptor? Or a mathematician? Clearly not."

You can't narrow down intelligence to one quality (or even two, three, or four), and you certainly can't thoroughly evaluate someone's intellectual abilities simply in a 5 minute chat. If, during one of your 5 minute judgement chats, someone showed that they did math at a 4th grade level, you would ignorantly think "He's dumb.". If you met this same person while he was engaged in an activity he was skilled at, you would think "He's really smart." Point being: If you think that "intelligence" is one thing, if you think it can be evaluated in a 5 minute conversation, or from an IQ test for that matter, then you should simply stop posting and let the knowledgeable people talk.

--

On that note, I'll finish with this: IQ only measures IQ. It is not equivalent to "intelligence", and although it definitely has predictive power of one's performance in our society, that correlation is not written in stone.

You really should avoid talking out of your ass so much. The Wechsler test (the most common IQ test nowadays) tests the following categories:

1. a Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)
2. a Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI)
3. a Working Memory Index (WMI)
4. a Processing Speed Index (PSI)
5. a composite, single full-scale IQ (FSIQ) score based on the combined scores
6. a General Ability Index (GAI) to identify general cognitive ability

A concise, correct description of the test would have been "It attempts to measure a subset of cognitive abilities."

Oh my, how little we understand from simply getting our answers from Wikipedia.
I specifically say complex problem solving for a reason. I kind of like that you don't have any clue what I was talking about. What are the virtues of intelligence itself according to tests? I'll give you a hint, complex problem solving is one of them.


It is not measuring "some function". It attempts to quantify several cognitive functions.

But it is.


And this confirms that you don't know a thing about IQ or IQ tests. Simply put, it means that "average" people from past decades would have scored lower than average people of today, if they took our IQ tests. While you could qualify that as "lawl we're smarter", the reason we are "smarter" is because of the constantly progressing intellectual environment of our society. In other words, rising IQ scores is just yet another demonstration of the fact that IQ is not static or determined.

So then there should be a larger than average raise to IQ levels since the internet came in to existence, according to you, correct?
Oh and I was going to wait to drop this hammer but I do know what the Flynn effect is and it doesn't state that IQ scores rise over time. It states that just as it can rise it can also drop over time.


In 5 minutes of speaking with someone you could determine whether they are more intelligent than you? Jesus...the nonsense just never stops with you, does it? As Sentinel put it "Is a violin virtuoso "intelligent" in the same way that a master architect is? Or a great sculptor? Or a mathematician? Clearly not."

A persons job placement does not represent their intellectual capabilities.

You can't narrow down intelligence to one quality (or even two, three, or four), and you certainly can't thoroughly evaluate someone's intellectual abilities simply in a 5 minute chat. If, during one of your 5 minute judgement chats, someone showed that they did math at a 4th grade level, you would ignorantly think "He's dumb.". If you met this same person while he was engaged in an activity he was skilled at, you would think "He's really smart." Point being: If you think that "intelligence" is one thing, if you think it can be evaluated in a 5 minute conversation, or from an IQ test for that matter, then you should simply stop posting and let the knowledgeable people talk.

You have the part about there being virtues to intelligence (4, by the way) but the rest is ridiculous. Again, job does not represent intellectual capability. Neither does skill. Intelligence is a hell of a lot different than educated. I agree with you to an extent, however. 5 minutes is not exactly how long it would take me, or anyone, to measure someone intellectually.

A persons job placement does not represent their intellectual capabilities.


*wooooooooooooooosh*
http://www.latinoreview.com/images/user/picard-facepalm.jpg

*wooooooooooooooosh*
http://www.latinoreview.com/images/user/picard-facepalm.jpg

I don't get it.
Is the wooosh the sound of what I said going right over your head?

As I tell your companions all the time: You don't know what you're talking about, you know you don't know what you're talking about, so stop trying to argue about it. Arguing isn't going to change the basic facts of what an IQ test is, what they measure, what they tend to be correlated with, and what intelligence is (or rather, what intelligence is not).

In any case, I've already written all of the important facts there are to know about IQ tests, that being: it is not equivalent to intelligence, it isn't a determined and unchanging number, and it has some predictive value, but nothing about its predictive power is written in stone. Period.

Protip: If you don't jump to ignorant conclusions, you won't get hit over the head by reality every time you're faced with actual scientific information.

EDIT: And as Zay pointed out...you really, really misinterpreted the comments about "mathematician, violin virtuoso, architect", given that you thought we were talking about job placement. Either way, I give up. These arguments go nowhere.

As I tell your companions all the time: You don't know what you're talking about, you know you don't know what you're talking about, so stop trying to argue about it. Arguing isn't going to change the basic facts of what an IQ test is, what they measure, what they tend to be correlated with, and what intelligence is (or rather, what intelligence is not).

More like you don't know what I am talking about.


In any case, I've already written all of the important facts there are to know about IQ tests, that being: it is not equivalent to intelligence, it isn't a determined and unchanging number, and it has some predictive value, but nothing about its predictive power is written in stone. Period.

Nothing about it's predictive power is written in stone is a long way off off from "it is not equivalent to intelligence".
You have copy and pasted from wikipedia, btw. That does not mean you comprehend. What's more you have not described intelligence and by not doing so you cannot take what you have pasted and claim it is an indication of intelligence or not. I guess you didn't pick up on that did you.

EDIT: And as Zay pointed out...you really, really misinterpreted the comments about "mathematician, violin virtuoso, architect", given that you thought we were talking about job placement.


You were attempting to change the definition of intelligence to suit your needs rather than actually argue based on the actual meaning of the word. All those people have intelligence but what you describe is actually their title based on what they choose to do in life. Also known as a job. Intelligence is the precursor to gaining knowledge, not knowledge itself.
I answered correctly, your failed to comprehend.

Perhaps there is a meaning in what you wrote that I didn't grasp but that's what I have gathered from reading it.

1) I copied the 6 scoring indices of the WAIS exam, nothing else. Anything else I've written is based on what I've learned from paying attention in classes and reading science journals or textbooks.

2) I'll illustrate the point about "mathematicians, violinists, etc." another way: Although some would judge you as unintelligent, stupid, moronic, or borderline-retarded based on what you've written in this thread, you might have (just maybe) made a much better impression if you were judged in another setting. It was merely an illustration of how complicated and generally unreliable (social) judgements of intelligence are.

3) Perhaps there is a meaning in what you wrote that I didn't grasp but that's what I have gathered from reading it.

Yeah, yeah...recurring theme.

1) I copied the 6 scoring indices of the WAIS exam, nothing else. Anything else I've written is based on what I've learned from paying attention in classes and reading science journals or textbooks.

2) I'll illustrate the point about "mathematicians, violinists, etc." another way: Although some would judge you as unintelligent, stupid, moronic, or borderline-retarded based on what you've written in this thread, you might have (just maybe) made a much better impression if you were judged in another setting. It was merely an illustration of how complicated and generally unreliable (social) judgements of intelligence are.

3)

Yeah, yeah...recurring theme.

1. But you failed to comprehend why. If I had only said that you copied and pasted everything in your argument then what you just said would make sense. I did not say that and you have again failed to comprehend what I said.

2. I will, yet again, point out that there are not different types of intelligence.
No matter what they do they still have the same virtues of intelligence. Some more than others.

3. With you, yes it is.

IQ testing is true and tried.

They have not yet been able to put a number on mine as I answered all of the questions correct.

some people have been trying to state the reality. IQ tests were designed to diagnose retardation in army recruits in the early 1900's. the definition of intelligence used is "The global capacity of a person to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his/her environment.".

this is the point, the tests are excellent of quantifying how ill equiped someone is to handle thier enviroment. the lower the score, the more assistance will be required for the person to cope.

however, the inverse is not true. obviously, a higher score does not mean that someone is able to cope better. if you want a test of how well someone can manage thier enviroment, look at money (making the assumption all actions are done to maximise happiness -> wealth). (i would love to see a correlation between wealth and iq)

academics score highly, but so do under achievers. once average intelligence is reached, the test is no longer valid. any results obtained are outside the scope of the purpose of the test. it is like using a standard ruler to measure a football field. estimations can be made, and the results will have _some_ meaning, but at the end of the day it is just pissing in the wind and you would be far better off using an instrument designed for the job.

some people have been trying to state the reality. IQ tests were designed to diagnose retardation in army recruits in the early 1900's. the definition of intelligence used is "The global capacity of a person to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his/her environment.".

this is the point, the tests are excellent of quantifying how ill equiped someone is to handle thier enviroment. the lower the score, the more assistance will be required for the person to cope.

however, the inverse is not true. obviously, a higher score does not mean that someone is able to cope better. if you want a test of how well someone can manage thier enviroment, look at money (making the assumption all actions are done to maximise happiness -> wealth). (i would love to see a correlation between wealth and iq)

academics score highly, but so do under achievers. once average intelligence is reached, the test is no longer valid. any results obtained are outside the scope of the purpose of the test. it is like using a standard ruler to measure a football field. estimations can be made, and the results will have _some_ meaning, but at the end of the day it is just pissing in the wind and you would be far better off using an instrument designed for the job.

Okay but....
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq01.htm
http://www.iqtest-center.com/history.php

You're sort of correct but History is larger than just American history. The IQ test has changed a lot since then.

And this:
http://monkeynostrils.blogspot.com/2008/12/teachers-smart-underpaid.html
and this:
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=SAT+IQ+correlation&btnG=Search

All of this FIGHTING! FUCK! Listen to each other people! I can see some of you arguing the same or similar points without even realizing it in your insane I-have-to-be-right state of egos!

Intelligence is defined differently by everyone, IQ tests are no different. They are a tool that can be very useful for showing cognitive abilities which IMO is part of what I call intelligence. Though no test could ever measure actual "intelligence" IMHO because it would have to take into account creativity, artistic thought, emotions, and so much more.

Does that mean I think IQ is useless? No of course not, but it sure as hell isn't the end all be all test of how smart you are...

the interwebz says i have an IQ of 106; i thought i would do a bit better than that- mind you they were mostly mathematical questions and i fucking hate maths.

I don't think too many people are worried about the people who score below 80 on IQ tests taking over the world.

I would also bet that most of the people who score in the top 5% have noticed that they are out numbered by people in the NORMAL range by 10 to 1.

But a person with an IQ score of 110 can stil hide important information from someone with a score of 150. The person with the 150 score may not necessarily find out that the information is being hidden.

Are economists with PhDs intelligent? If so should they be able to figure out that planned obsolescence has been going on in cars for decades? When have you ever heard economists discuss it on television? So if you never hear about it what does that say about intelligence and information in this society? Just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean they know what the hell is going on.

Are we bombarded with bullshit so we can't use what intelligence we have?

DT

- Everyone thinks they're a genius
- This is actually healthy
- Everyone will rationalize why IQ tests don't relate at all to intelligence and a retard is just as possible of becoming president as anyone else
- This is actually healthy
(by "everyone" I mean &T in general)

I really think a lot of people don't want to face the fact that they're stupid as fuck compared to some people.

Personally, even though I know I'm not "uber elite 10x mega huge penis" (IQ score), I know that for me it is still worthwhile to pursue knowledge because while the uber-iq's are taking backhoes to the rubble I'm clearing it out with my hands -- and it's better to do the work than to not try.

Face it &T, you're not the smartest person in the world, regardless of your IQ score, hell, even because of your IQ score. You're not all Artimus Fowl. IQ scores do correlate to a lot of things, and sorry to say many people consider them good -- grades, jobs, colleges. They also don't because there are uber geniuses which turn out to be bouncers, or strip-club owners, or dealers of cannabis and LSD.

Some people with high intelligence can have low self-esteem, some can score low on novelty seeking, some can have other traits which aren't "good". Personality, temperment, and IQ are all different things and even though you're not a genius you still are a really good person.

- Everyone thinks they're a genius
- This is actually healthy
- Everyone will rationalize why IQ tests don't relate at all to intelligence and a retard is just as possible of becoming president as anyone else
- This is actually healthy
(by "everyone" I mean &T in general)

I really think a lot of people don't want to face the fact that they're stupid as fuck compared to some people.

Personally, even though I know I'm not "uber elite 10x mega huge penis" (IQ score), I know that for me it is still worthwhile to pursue knowledge because while the uber-iq's are taking backhoes to the rubble I'm clearing it out with my hands -- and it's better to do the work than to not try.

Face it &T, you're not the smartest person in the world, regardless of your IQ score, hell, even because of your IQ score. You're not all Artimus Fowl. IQ scores do correlate to a lot of things, and sorry to say many people consider them good -- grades, jobs, colleges. They also don't because there are uber geniuses which turn out to be bouncers, or strip-club owners, or dealers of cannabis and LSD.

Some people with high intelligence can have low self-esteem, some can score low on novelty seeking, some can have other traits which aren't "good". Personality, temperment, and IQ are all different things and even though you're not a genius you still are a really good person.

This is honestly the best post I've ever seen a New Arrival make. Good job.

And you're definitely right about "everyone thinks they're a genius". It's amusing...the same person who talks about how valuable IQ tests are will almost always have to rationalize why he didn't score so well on it. "I'm smart, but..." Then they tend to revert to bullshit about average IQs, and how they think the average IQ of their ethnic group has something to do with them.

Ahh...idiocy.

It's funny how you generalize all racists and IQ-proponents as having low IQ's, as if anyone has ever acted like that towards you.

By the way DurrDrache, just a little pointer as I've noticed this in almost every post you make. Text (aside from other punctuation marks) followed after an ellipsis should feature a space (as well as capitalization). Just thought I'd let you know, since you have an IQ of 130 and you attend "university", it might come in handy should you actually have to submit an essay or turn in a resume, should your lazy black ass ever decide to actually work for your paycheck.

Text followed after an ellipsis

While you may know the format rules for using an ellipsis, you apparently suck at grammar.

"Text following an ellipsis", dumbass.

It's funny how you generalize all racists and IQ-proponents as having low IQ's, as if anyone has ever acted like that towards you.

Where the hell did you learn English?

Anyways: I have nothing against IQ-proponents. I have a problem with people that praise IQ without understanding a damn thing about it, and when they refuse to learn about it. As for racists? I'm sure that there are some out there that have high IQs. However, given that the basis for the delusion is a lack of critical thinking skills, and based on the nonsense that racists tend to spew, I would assume that most are on the left side of the curve. Either way, I don't really care about generalizing them; they're a cancer to humanity and society, and I'd prefer it if they were launched into the sun.

While you may know the format rules for using an ellipsis, you apparently suck at grammar.

"Text following an ellipsis", dumbass.

Trivial difference, both are correct. I'm curious, why are you afraid to make the correlation of low IQ's in blacks? You clearly have no problem doing it with racists, in fact you advocate their genocide, claiming they are a cancer on the planet. What exactly are black people? What have they contributed to humanity? Nothing. They are nothing but disease and back-trot. Plenty of racists on the other hand have contributed more to society than a sizable racial division of man. Isn't that funny?

So tell me, if what you perceive to be the rationality and cognitive abilities of a man can influence an IQ score, why do you denounce IQ as worthless? Why do you ignore the fact that the average black IQ is 80? The obvious answer is because you are black and you have some racial pride within you.

Who made you the authority on IQ you condescending prick?

This feels like some kind of crazy troll.
that was my impression too

Trivial difference, both are correct. I'm curious, why are you afraid to make the correlation of low IQ's in blacks? You clearly have no problem doing it with racists, in fact you advocate their genocide, claiming they are a cancer on the planet. What exactly are black people? What have they contributed to humanity? Nothing. They are nothing but disease and back-trot. Plenty of racists on the other hand have contributed more to society than a sizable racial division of man. Isn't that funny?

So tell me, if what you perceive to be the rationality and cognitive abilities of a man can influence an IQ score, why do you denounce IQ as worthless? Why do you ignore the fact that the average black IQ is 80? The obvious answer is because you are black and you have some racial pride within you.

1) You can not say "Text followed after an ellipsis.", you retard. If you ever get around to getting an education, I'd suggest also taking a grammar course. I don't really care about your grammar, but since you began nitpicking about ellipses, I'm going to point out your shoddy use of English.

2) Your statements about average black IQ are not factual, and as I mentioned before, anyone with reasonable critical thinking skills would see how absurd such a statement is. (The most glaring reason being that most people haven't taken IQ tests.) Furthermore, since my IQ is 130, I could care less what the average is. I'm not saying that such a correlation isn't possible, and I actually think it's quite plausible, given the environment that most blacks are raised in, but i) such a correlation hasn't actually been made, and ii) if it were made, correlation is not equivalent to causation.

Now, since I know that (i) will confuse and anger you, allow me to elaborate. IQ tests were given to some black people, and those results can not be extrapolated to the entire world population of blacks. It would be like estimating your neighbor's IQ on the basis of yours. Given that we KNOW that environment alone can vastly affect someone's IQ score, using race as the basis for extrapolating from a sample to a population is insane.

3) I never said that IQ is worthless. I said it has some value as a predictor of someone's success in life (or lack thereof). However, since that predictive value is not always accurate, and since IQ can change, IQ is really of no use to the general public. It's useful in the medical field (ie. evaluating someone's brain function following a lesion to the brain), it could be useful for policy-makers (ie. helping them see what schools and districts of the the city need improvement), but for the general public...it really just fuels bigotry and stupidity.

4) As for me wanting racists to be flown into the sun? I can't stand stupidity that leads to harm. If they were just stupid, live and let live, but when their stupidity promotes or directly causes beatings, stabbings, and the killing of innocent people, they need to go. This goes for all forms of harmful stupidity, not just racism.

1) You can not say "Text followed after an ellipsis.", you retard.

You say I cannot, yet you give no reason why. That is because it is just as correct, you are obsessing over a trivial difference.

2) Your statements about average black IQ are not factual, and as I mentioned before, anyone with reasonable critical thinking skills would see how absurd such a statement is. (The most glaring reason being that most people haven't taken IQ tests.)

Different races have been studied consecutively for years and the same results have been produced.

Furthermore, since my IQ is 130, I could care less what the average is.

I would like to know the name of the institution that were tested at, as well as the test model you took. Also, since this was at the age of 13 (as you highlighted in different thread) and adolescent IQ is gauged via mathmatical calcuation and relative averages, your IQ is not 130. Take a test as an adult, give us your provider and institution and get back to us. Just as internet IQ tests are inaccurate, adolescent IQ tests are as well. Generally, for IQ tests one can shave off 30-40 points to get a more realistic score, and the same applies to adolescent IQ as one ages. I would assume your IQ is in the 90-100 range. Congratulations, you are an extreme exception in the black population or; your average white American. That has no bearing on the fact that the average black IQ is 80.


I'm not saying that such a correlation isn't possible, and I actually think it's quite plausible, given the environment that most blacks are raised in, but i) such a correlation hasn't actually been made, and ii) if it were made, correlation is not equivalent to causation.

Environment you say? Then would you like to explain why the average IQ for oppressed Tibetans is 110? Would you like to explain why the average Irish IQ is 90? Correlation is often equivalent to causation, name a single black contribution.


Now, since I know that (i) will confuse and anger you, allow me to elaborate. IQ tests were given to some black people, and those results can not be extrapolated to the entire world population of blacks.

IQ tests were given to scores of black people many times per year over the course of more than half of a century. The results have always been concurrent. You do not confuse anyone.

It would be like estimating your neighbor's IQ on the basis of yours. Given that we KNOW that environment alone can vastly affect someone's IQ score, using race as the basis for extrapolating from a sample to a population is insane.

I do estimate my neighbors IQ's based on mine, which is why I won't be moving to Compton any time soon. Apparently you do as well, given your love of liberal cities such as Chicago and New York and your hatred for all southern states.

3) I never said that IQ is worthless. I said it has some value as a predictor of someone's success in life (or lack thereof). However, since that predictive value is not always accurate, and since IQ can change,

One's IQ can only change if one is given the same questions and allowed to memorize answers in order to effectively complete a test in less time. If one is given varying answers or test models with each testing attempt, as should be done, one's true intelligence quotient will be revealed every single time.


IQ is really of no use to the general public. It's useful in the medical field (ie. evaluating someone's brain function following a lesion to the brain), it could be useful for policy-makers (ie. helping them see what schools and districts of the the city need improvement), but for the general public...it really just fuels bigotry and stupidity.

Who cares? Bigotry isn't bad. Why are you afraid of the truth? It seems that in your mind intelligence = stupidity. If it is effective for evaluating one's criminal tendencies and cognitive functioning it is a useful tool to be applied to the general public.


4) As for me wanting racists to be flown into the sun? I can't stand stupidity that leads to harm. If they were just stupid, live and let live, but when their stupidity promotes or directly causes beatings, stabbings, and the killing of innocent people, they need to go. This goes for all forms of harmful stupidity, not just racism.

Once again your definition of "stupidity" is that which does not suit your own selfish ass desires. I don't think the actions of racists promote beatings or killing, back in the 1930's there was very little black on white crime and vice versa. I admit, there were a number of tragedies inflicted upon black and Asian Americans, and it was a force of hatred. But before the civil rights movement and desegregation, how many crips and bloods were there? How many latin kings? None, blacks stuck to their own and committed violence and perversion against their own people. Would you rather have criminals all over the place or in their own ethnic areas of the land?

"One's IQ can only change if one is given the same questions and allowed to memorize answers in order to effectively complete a test in less time. If one is given varying answers or test models with each testing attempt, as should be done, one's true intelligence quotient will be revealed every single time."

This is why you are not allowed to participate in this discussion. Learn about IQ, and then you'll be taken off of my ignore-list. Pro-tip: When you make bullshit up in the presence of people who know what they're talking about, you give yourself away.

Here is a summary of one of many studies showing the dynamic, malleable nature of IQ: http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1997/A/199700119.html

If you want the details of the study, you'll have to look at the scientific journal that it's published in. Most libraries have access to journal databases, so if at some point in your life you decide to stop being an uneducated moron, you know where to start. The great thing about science journals is that every study published in one has to be presented in extreme, minute detail, and then scrutinized many times to ensure that it follows the scientific method. I reckon you'll have a heart attack once you realize just how much science shits on your delusions.

That is not a scientific study, that is a twelve year old article containing excerpts of a study. You are lying to yourself when you say that all scientific studies have to be scrutinized to the extreme, many of them are not.

Co-authors Beverly I. Fagot, Ph.D., and Mary Gauvain, Ph.D., found that if the mothers rated their child as difficult, their child would have more errors on laboratory performance tasks taken at 18 months and at 30 months. Disapproving behavior by the mother when the child was 30 months increased the child's likelihood of developing learning problems at age five according to kindergarten teacher ratings. Also, children whose mothers gave disapproving looks, criticized them and gave support had lower verbal and math scores on the IQ test.

I wonder where Beverly Fagot obtained a Ph.D? You cannot make scientific observations over kindergarten teacher ratings. And these "IQ's", once again, are adolescent IQ's. You'll notice I never said IQ isn't dynamic, the only official IQ is that which is tested as an adult. Everything else is unreliable as it is all mathematically calculated via standardized relativity charts. Besides that it's already recognized that one's cognitive ability improves with age.

You are hypocritical for providing this study while you play the "only some blacks have been tested, not all of them" argument. This is a study of 93 children conducted in the same geographical area. So by your logic, it is inadmissible as evidence to support your argument.

I highly doubt you ever even knew this study existed prior to finding it via a frantic google search.

That is not a scientific study, that is a twelve year old article containing excerpts of a study. You are lying to yourself when you say that all scientific studies have to be scrutinized to the extreme, many of them are not.



I wonder where Beverly Fagot obtained a Ph.D? You cannot make scientific observations over kindergarten teacher ratings. And these "IQ's", once again, are adolescent IQ's. You'll notice I never said IQ isn't dynamic, the only official IQ is that which is tested as an adult. Everything else is unreliable as it is all mathematically calculated via standardized relativity charts. Besides that it's already recognized that one's cognitive ability improves with age.

You are hypocritical for providing this study while you play the "only some blacks have been tested, not all of them" argument. This is a study of 93 children conducted in the same geographical area. So by your logic, it is inadmissible as evidence to support your argument.

I highly doubt you ever even knew this study existed prior to finding it via a frantic google search.

"Also, children whose mothers gave disapproving looks, criticized them and gave support had lower verbal and math scores on the IQ test."

1) ^That is what you should have been attention to, genius. I also told you that you could read the entire study in full detail in the journal in which it's published.

2) The IQs of the 93 children are not being used to estimate the IQs of all children in the world. The study showed the effects of a mother's interaction with her child on the child's IQ. Are you suggesting that this would not happen with children from another geographical location? I'm not going to say it's impossible. Go get a degree, become a scientist, and find out. (Although, this study has been replicated, so assuming you weren't lazy, you could read the other studies on the topic.)

3)
And these "IQ's", once again, are adolescent IQ's. You'll notice I never said IQ isn't dynamic, the only official IQ is that which is tested as an adult. Everything else is unreliable as it is all mathematically calculated via standardized relativity charts. Besides that it's already recognized that one's cognitive ability improves with age.

As I told you before, stop talking out of your ass. Find me a published scientific study supporting your notion of "official IQ", and find me another one that shows that juvenile IQ tests are less valid than an adult IQ test. If you indeed have scientific support for your ideas, then you shouldn't have much trouble remembering a few studies. Lastly: All IQ tests are scored on the the basis of a person's relative performance, whether the test is for a 10 year old, or for a 70 year old.

4) Please, work on your reading skills.

"Also, children whose mothers gave disapproving looks, criticized them and gave support had lower verbal and math scores on the IQ test."

1) ^That is what you should have been attention to, genius. I also told you that you could read the entire study in full detail in the journal in which it's published.

I could, so could you, as you didn't even know it existed until a few moments ago. Maybe you should read my last post as well, especially the part concerning IQ dynamicism. You cannot logically determine that this is because the mothers were critical, as you do not have access to the study, the reporter very well could have made an error of judgment when writing that article. Furthermore you cannot simply go in to any public library and find any study ever conducted, you would have to go to the library of the same city or state to have a chance at finding the entire study. Also, where do you propose one pick up a copy of that journal? It's twelve years old.


2) The IQs of the 93 children are not being used to estimate the IQs of all children in the world. The study showed the effects of a mother's interaction with her child on the child's IQ. Are you suggesting that this would not happen with children from another geographical location? I'm not going to say it's impossible. Go get a degree, become a scientist, and find out.

I'm suggesting it could very well be possible, but my point is that you cannot discredit the studies of racial IQ differences while promoting this study, unless of course the nature of your hypocrisy does not bother you in the slightest.


As I told you before, stop talking out of your ass. Find me a scientific study supporting your notion of "official IQ", and find me another one that shows that juvenile IQ tests are less valid than an adult IQ test. If you indeed have scientific support for your ideas, then you shouldn't have much trouble remembering a few studies.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx


To relate the mental development of a child to the child's chronological age the IQ was invented. IQ = (MA/CA) * 100. The intelligence quotient was equal to 100 times the Mental Age divided by the Chronological Age. For example, if a certain child started reading, etc., at the age of 3 (CA) and average children start reading, etc., at the age of 6 (MA), the child would get an IQ score of 200. (Such a score is very, very rare). Since people wanted to also use IQs for adults, that formula was not very useful since raw scores start to level off around the age of 16 (2).

It is clear that they are not based on relative terms as a 10 year old child cannot even comprehend things that an elderly person can. If the juvenile cannot be tested in the same fields as the adult, there can be no relativity. Adolescent IQ tests aren't even comparable to adult IQ tests, in fact they're two completely different things. It wouldn't even matter if they were tested by relative standards, you could create an IQ test for a cat in which it was required to chase lasers around a simple maze and give it an IQ of 30,000 but it wouldn't matter what it's IQ was in relative terms, the cat cannot accomplish anything but procreation. Likewise it doesn't matter what someone's IQ is at 5 or 7 or 13, IQ score is only relevant at around the age of 18 or even 16, as noted above.

As for a source regarding race and IQ I suggest you pick up a copy of The Bell Curve as well as check out the work of Arthur Jensen, one of the most brilliant minds to ever grace this planet.

Even if I had just searched for and found the article (which I didn't), it wouldn't have any bearing on the information in the study.

Internet databases compile studies from science journals, and most libraries have access to such databases. You can access them from your home if you paid for a subscription.

As for youth IQs: You've once again proven that you are talking out of your ass. That was the original method for determining IQ (dating back to when a French teacher developed the first IQ test) and it's been out of use for quite some time.

The Bell Curve is propoganda, not science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Criticisms

It would have bearing on your condescending remarks regarding my ability to gather and study information.

That is not out of use.

It's no surprise a bunch of Marxist Jews have come out against the Bell Curve, everyone has an agenda, whether it be the truth or the fear of the truth, because it "fuels racism" or "promotes hate". Perhaps racism is necessary? Most of these criticisms of the bell curve are already scientifically refutable, just as we have observed in this topic. All science is contradictory, anyone with enough time to sit there and think some bullshit up or run a few botched studies can argue about it all day long. When it boils down to things one's perception and common sense is more important than the scientific method and all of these excerpts of studies. Once again;

IQ determines cognitive abilities necessary to create, achieve and share.

IQ is correlated with criminal behavior.

The lower one scores on an IQ test, the less cognitive they are.

The most advanced races score the highest on IQ tests, even when oppressed (Tibetans).

The least advanced score the lowest.

Clearly a verdict can be reached.

When it boils down to things one's perception and common sense is more important than the scientific method

Looks like I've got a new signature.

--
When it boils down to things one's perception and common sense is more important than the scientific method

Looks like I've got a new signature.

--

That fucker is full of great quotes.



It's no surprise a bunch of Marxist Jews have come out against the Bell Curve,

Yes, yes. The Marxist-Jews are to blame.

- Everyone thinks they're a genius
- This is actually healthy
- Everyone will rationalize why IQ tests don't relate at all to intelligence and a retard is just as possible of becoming president as anyone else
- This is actually healthy
(by "everyone" I mean &T in general)

I really think a lot of people don't want to face the fact that they're stupid as fuck compared to some people.

Personally, even though I know I'm not "uber elite 10x mega huge penis" (IQ score), I know that for me it is still worthwhile to pursue knowledge because while the uber-iq's are taking backhoes to the rubble I'm clearing it out with my hands -- and it's better to do the work than to not try.

Face it &T, you're not the smartest person in the world, regardless of your IQ score, hell, even because of your IQ score. You're not all Artimus Fowl. IQ scores do correlate to a lot of things, and sorry to say many people consider them good -- grades, jobs, colleges. They also don't because there are uber geniuses which turn out to be bouncers, or strip-club owners, or dealers of cannabis and LSD.

Some people with high intelligence can have low self-esteem, some can score low on novelty seeking, some can have other traits which aren't "good". Personality, temperment, and IQ are all different things and even though you're not a genius you still are a really good person.

Yes, you definitely are not the smartest person in the world.

There was a similar thread in Mad Scientists which can be found here (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2180723&page=3)

Below is my response.

A genius is being smart in one certain field, and making advances in that one field. An IQ test is a general knowledge test.

Is this true at all?

Assuming your definition of genius is correct, the test itself doesn't determine whether or not you are a genius but whether you have the potential to be one.

It's aptitude vs achievement, or ability. Your intellectual potential capitalization is dependant on many factors both internal and external. You should research Malcom Gladwell and/or James Flynn. Very interesting stuff.

In Gladwell's new book he uses Canadian hockey players as an example of potential capitalization. Because the cutoff date for registration in the junior leagues is January 1st, the kids who are biggest by then - or the ones born in the first half of the year - are usually selected above the rest (this effect can be proven by the birth dates on Canadian professional hockey rosters) That doesn't necessarily mean that they are better, but just that they are bigger. Those that are selected then are given more training time, better coaching, more playing time, etc. until they actually are better than the ones that weren't selected to begin with. Logically, they have failed to capitalize on 50% of ther potential hockey talent. The same sort of effect exists in all sorts of social institutions. The rules themselves inadvertently determine who succeeds and who fails.

Flynn has done research on trends in intelligence testing and the like. What's interesting to note is that the average IQ in the year 1900 was close to 50. Now it's 100. Does that mean we are all on average smarter than our grandparents were? No. The reason for this trend - called the Flynn Effect - is that our certain psychosocial priorities and methods have directly influenced certain abilities - such as categorization - thus, they have influenced our psychometric test scores in certain regions. The effect becomes perfectly obvious when the particular regions of the test are isolated from one another, and the trends analyzed. We've shown a steady increase in our scores in Raven's Progressive Matrices (which involves categorization) yet have shown almost no increase in other areas, such as vocabulary.

This begs the question: how did our grandparents think differently than us, and how does that difference enable us to score better on progressive matrices than they?

According to Flynn, over the course of the past 100 years we've experienced extreme changes in our categorical knowledge. When asked to explain a hound our grandparents would have said something to the effect of "A hound is good for hunting, good sense of smell." Today we'd be more inclined to say "It's a vertebrate, a mammal, and unlike a chihuahua it has such and such features." They would take the utilitarian approach, we would take the categorical one.

... that is all.

"One's IQ can only change if one is given the same questions and allowed to memorize answers in order to effectively complete a test in less time.

NOT all IQ tests are based on Q&A you azzzzhole !!!

Some IQ tests are based on reflex actions, eye-hand coordination....and memory tests and such.

Your phailure to understand the concept of IQ and the scope of IQ related tests suggests your someone with lower-than-average IQ.....

And coupled with your numerous phail threads[s] here,...on totse itself,...proves, beyond all reasonable doubt and serves as an inalienable truth...that :

YOU = LO-IQ.

Sad, but very true....

There was a similar thread in Mad Scientists which can be found here (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2180723&page=3)

Below is my response.



Assuming your definition of genius is correct, the test itself doesn't determine whether or not you are a genius but whether you have the potential to be one.


I disagree with this part. The test determines absolutely NOTHING. It provides a number, and statisticians can look at where people with different numbers tend to go in life. People with subpar or average IQs can go on to have great success, and even mastery in a complex field. People with "genius" IQs can go on to live in their parents basement jerking off all day. It's a number that allows you to predict with SOME accuracy where someone MIGHT go in life, but the second you start talking about "it determines", you are wrong.

I should also point out that I find the whole concept of "genius" to be rather silly, given that there are millions (probably a couple billions) of average people who have gained mastery of complex things. Go watch some working class carpenters build structurally sound houses in their sleep, or professional athletes adapt reflexively to the constantly changing conditions on their field or court. Humans have the awesome ability to be "geniuses" in just about whatever they set their mind to. Honestly, people need to just focus on that and realize that nobody is just an unchanging end-product of their genes or an IQ test.

That said, I agree with most of the other stuff you said.

I might agree, DerDrache, depending on the case.

If there are statistical trends that display a positive correlation between IQ scores and financial success or social status, then the test could be said to determine potential (according to our analysts factors). Nothing is entirely definitive but for all intents and purposes the correlation is so tight that "determination" suffices. I wouldn't mind saying that it predicts with great certainty this or that, though. ;)

Here's (http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/grady/realworld.html) an interesting link that relates to our discussion.

I disagree with this part. The test determines absolutely NOTHING. It provides a number, and statisticians can look at where people with different numbers tend to go in life. People with subpar or average IQs can go on to have great success, and even mastery in a complex field. People with "genius" IQs can go on to live in their parents basement jerking off all day.

BS unless you have PROOF to back them up.....


It's a number that allows you to predict with SOME accuracy where someone MIGHT go in life, but the second you start talking about "it determines", you are wrong.

NO NO NO !!! It's the number that determines whether "your" people lives in this :

http://archives.zinester.com/60514/143124/232308_slum.JPG.....

or .... this :

http://www.streetdirectory.com/stock_images/travel/simg_show/11192555420463/1/scrolling_along_the_beautiful_city_river/


"I should also point out that I find the whole concept of "genius" to be rather silly," says the village fool ...

[a] fixed...
when your silly, everything else sounds silly....

given that there are millions (probably a couple billions) of average people who have gained mastery of complex things.

DEFINE :

[a] mastery;
"complex things" ...

Go watch some working class carpenters build structurally sound houses in their sleep

and ants built structurally sound mole hills ?? What does that proves ? I mean ... what does that even means ???


or professional athletes adapt reflexively to the [B]constantly changing conditions on their field or court.

A smart person would have known that the [B]condition of the court/ field they are in remained constant, (grass of the football field remained almost the same height throughout the game) it's just the players and their strategy that changes.....

Bad semantics = lo IQ...

Humans have the awesome ability to be "geniuses" in just about whatever they set their mind to.

Are you saying that the people in picture "A" above chooses to lives in those condition, although they can just easily set their mind to "make a better living place" and became a geniuses in making beautiful, lovely cities....???

Honestly, people need to just focus on that and realize that nobody is just an unchanging end-product of their genes or an IQ test.

Denial and self induced delusions.....

That said, I agree with most of the other stuff you said.

Nice try making yourself sounds credible.......

So many IQ points, so much troll fodder.

. Is there anyone dumb enough to disagree with this?

Yeah, me. Speaking as someone with an IQ of 168 (revised Wechsler), it seems obvious that all an IQ test measures is one's ability to take IQ tests. (And one question I recall getting wrong was due to cultural bias--in order to answer it correctly , you had to know how many pence in a shilling.)

It has precious little to do with one's success in the real world--see George Bush (the current one) for proof.

I think the entire concept of boiling intelligence down to a single number is idiotic. But it appears to have become an institutuionalized convenience to our educational bureaucracies.

Why don't we have a single number system for rating computers. The performance of every computer ever made should be expressed as a single number. I think a lot of computer people would find that laughably stupid but I don't hear them talking about how idiotic IQ testing is.

75% of the population scores below 111
84% of the population scores below 117
90% of the population scores below 121

Maybe we should require all people who appear on TV talk shows to wear tags showing their IQ scores. LOL

DT

I think the entire concept of boiling intelligence down to a single number is idiotic. But it appears to have become an institutuionalized convenience to our educational bureaucracies.

Why don't we have a single number system for rating computers. The performance of every computer ever made should be expressed as a single number.

Yes...we do. Just by looking at a computer, a computer labeled with pentium 4 is always better than a computer with a pentium II label.....and although not entirely accurate, you can bet your ass that a computer with a pentium 4 will beat the shit out of a computer with pentium II. -period-

I think a lot of computer people would find that laughably stupid but I don't hear them talking about how idiotic IQ testing is.

Only an asshole like you would....ie; people who don't know anything about computers,...or IQ score is in this case...would...

75% of the population scores below 111
84% of the population scores below 117
90% of the population scores below 121

Your statistic is mathematically impossible...

Maybe we should require all people who appear on TV talk shows to wear tags showing their IQ scores. LOL

DT

That is totally irrelevant... it's like requiring an IQ tag for your pet goldfish.....you kno....like who cares how smart your gold fish is .... all that matters is that your goldfish looked nice and goldy....and that's it...

Look, people who appears on tv shows are there solely due to their good looks... not because of their intelligence. I would prefer to see good looking dumb people in my tv than a geek with an IQ of over 190.

Why don't we have a single number system for rating computers. The performance of every computer ever made should be expressed as a single number. I think a lot of computer people would find that laughably stupid but I don't hear them talking about how idiotic IQ testing is.

Apparently you have never heard of benchmarking. "Computer People" use them constantly.

2) Your statements about average black IQ are not factual, and as I mentioned before, anyone with reasonable critical thinking skills would see how absurd such a statement is. (The most glaring reason being that most people haven't taken IQ tests.) Furthermore, since my IQ is 130, I could care less what the average is. I'm not saying that such a correlation isn't possible, and I actually think it's quite plausible, given the environment that most blacks are raised in, but i) such a correlation hasn't actually been made, and ii) if it were made, correlation is not equivalent to causation.

Just to clarify for my own benefit, are you attributing the low black IQ scores to environmental factors?


Now, since I know that (i) will confuse and anger you, allow me to elaborate. IQ tests were given to some black people, and those results can not be extrapolated to the entire world population of blacks. It would be like estimating your neighbor's IQ on the basis of yours. Given that we KNOW that environment alone can vastly affect someone's IQ score, using race as the basis for extrapolating from a sample to a population is insane.

1. Why can't the IQ tests given to some black people be extrapolated to the entire population of blacks? I mean, isn't this what extrapolation is supposed to be all about? Assuming that the samples are chosen reasonably randomly.

2. Why can't one use race as the basis of extrapolating? It's one of many physical attributes (assuming it's just that) people have. Really I would like to hear what exactly is so insane about using race as a basis for extrapolating.


3) I never said that IQ is worthless. I said it has some value as a predictor of someone's success in life (or lack thereof). However, since that predictive value is not always accurate, and since IQ can change, IQ is really of no use to the general public. It's useful in the medical field (ie. evaluating someone's brain function following a lesion to the brain), it could be useful for policy-makers (ie. helping them see what schools and districts of the the city need improvement), but for the general public...it really just fuels bigotry and stupidity.

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say that IQ tests and results shouldn't be made known to the public because they might fuel bigotry..etc?

What I don't get is why you would even care if IQ tests are useful to the general public or not. Seriously, what do you care if some average joe is curious about IQs and wishes to know more about IQ tests and studies? Are you now anxious because you can't personally stand next to him telling him just how "wrong" and how "unreliable", how "lacking in predictive value" IQ scores are?


4) As for me wanting racists to be flown into the sun? I can't stand stupidity that leads to harm. If they were just stupid, live and let live, but when their stupidity promotes or directly causes beatings, stabbings, and the killing of innocent people, they need to go. This goes for all forms of harmful stupidity, not just racism.

Prove that racism invariably leads to beatings/killings of innocents. You can't.

Besides, there are many different branches of racism. While some do promote violence, others have been known to promote peaceful self-segregation. What do you have to say about the latter?

I disagree with this part. The test determines absolutely NOTHING. It provides a number, and statisticians can look at where people with different numbers tend to go in life. People with subpar or average IQs can go on to have great success, and even mastery in a complex field. People with "genius" IQs can go on to live in their parents basement jerking off all day. It's a number that allows you to predict with SOME accuracy where someone MIGHT go in life, but the second you start talking about "it determines", you are wrong.

Actually, I believe that the IQ tests do a reasonably good job of finding out who's "stupid", for a lack of better term. However they don't do a good job at determining who's smart.

I mean, if one is of low intelligence, it will be quite hard to score high on the tests. However if one's smart, there exists the possibility that he might score low. I believe it was Einstein, or some insanely smart dude, who scored pretty low on the IQ tests.



I should also point out that I find the whole concept of "genius" to be rather silly, given that there are millions (probably a couple billions) of average people who have gained mastery of complex things. Go watch some working class carpenters build structurally sound houses in their sleep, or professional athletes adapt reflexively to the constantly changing conditions on their field or court. Humans have the awesome ability to be "geniuses" in just about whatever they set their mind to. Honestly, people need to just focus on that and realize that nobody is just an unchanging end-product of their genes or an IQ test..

Those aren't geniuses. They are experts.

Be a difference.

Yes...we do. Just by looking at a computer, a computer labeled with pentium 4 is always better than a computer with a pentium II label.....and although not entirely accurate, you can bet your ass that a computer with a pentium 4 will beat the shit out of a computer with pentium II. -period-Apparently you have never heard of benchmarking. "Computer People" use them constantly.

ROFLMAO

Yeah, shows a definite need for better IQ testing. LOL

Is the Pentium Processor the only one used on this planet? How many different benchmark programs are there?

I built my first computer in 1978. I have written benchmark programs myself. The January 1983 Byte Magazine used the Sieve of Eratosthenes as a benchmark. Most of the computers tested at that time did not have caches so a small benchmark program was OK. But now with caches bigger than the RAM that a lot of computers had BACK then a small program would not test the memory bus speed.

Different benchmarks test different characteristics and consequently give different relative results on various computers. So trying to boil performance down to a single number for all computers is absurd. Of course it might work for people who are only smart enough to think they understand computers.

Guess what? My first search found a book on the subject.

Characterizing computer performance with a single number (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=63039.63043)

Google this:

+benchmarks +computers +"relative results"

DT

Yes...we do. Just by looking at a computer, a computer labeled with pentium 4 is always better than a computer with a pentium II label.....and although not entirely accurate, you can bet your ass that a computer with a pentium 4 will beat the shit out of a computer with pentium II. -period-

Wow, you really ARE a fucking retard!

I HAVE a Pentium II that performs better than my sister's Pentium 4 because she is a dumb-ass of a user and has loads of malware on her machine! She clicks on all those pop-ups that say "your computer may be infected" and she opens the SPAM with attachments that are ostensibly JPEG images of vacation pictures from someone she mysteriously can't remember meeting. She's an idiot and her computer suffers because of it. She can't even play music on her machine without gapping and random stops. By contrast, my Pentium II is clean as a whistle. I use it as an editing machine in my studio. Runs like a dream because I've never connected its sorry ass to the Internet.

Furthermore, performance is measured in FLOPS, not Hz. Hz measures how fast you can send commands to the CPU, big fucking deal. FLOPS measures how fast your computer can do math, which is more objective because it doesn't depend on things like your CPU's instruction set. Floating-point operations per second, mufucka. ;)

Further-furthermore, it's impossible to measure human brains the same way we measure computer capabilities, because even if one human can do fewer FLOPS than another human, the "slower" human can probably solve problems that the "faster" human can't.

In short, your analogy is poor.

ROFLMAO

Yeah, shows a definite need for better IQ testing. LOL

Is the Pentium Processor the only one used on this planet? How many different benchmark programs are there?

I built my first computer in 1978. I have written benchmark programs myself. The January 1983 Byte Magazine used the Sieve of Eratosthenes as a benchmark. Most of the computers tested at that time did not have caches so a small benchmark program was OK. But now with caches bigger than the RAM that a lot of computers had BACK then a small program would not test the memory bus speed.

Different benchmarks test different characteristics and consequently give different relative results on various computers. So trying to boil performance down to a single number for all computers is absurd. Of course it might work for people who are only smart enough to think they understand computers.

Guess what? My first search found a book on the subject.

Characterizing computer performance with a single number (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=63039.63043)

Google this:

+benchmarks +computers +"relative results"

DT

I know what benchmarks are. That's why I brought it up. You can benchmark any electronic part down to the very electrons running through its circuits. Regardless of how it's designed. It's all measurable and it can all be given a representative number based on it's attributes. Similar to an IQ test.

Might I add that a specific electronic components "Power" is actually calculated in the design phase. It's not like they build these things then determine how "powerful" it is.

And to answer you question, computers aren't standardized and they rapidly evolve. That's why it's more beneficial to have benchmarks specific to each class of computer rather than one general overall scoreboard, although I am sure somewhere one or more exists.

Next.

And to answer you question, computers aren't standardized and they rapidly evolve. That's why it's more beneficial to have benchmarks specific to each class of computer rather than one general overall scoreboard, although I am sure somewhere one or more exists.

God damn, did you even READ my last post? I just explained why everything you JUST SAID is wrong, before you even said it.

Computers ARE standardized. Computers ARE standardized. COMPUTERS ARE STANDARDIZED! FLOPS is a standard measurement of computer performance. There is NOTHING beneficial about having proprietary benchmarking standards. Anyway, what kind of class division for computers do you propose? For what kind of computer would FLOPS NOT be a useful performance measurement?

The Roadrunner is the most powerful computer in the world. It can do petaflops. I defy you to find any computer that can do any task faster than the Roadrunner. YOU CAN'T!

The reason this is NOT the same as IQ is because there actually ARE different classes of human intelligence. You can be bad at one thing and good at another. This is simply not the case with computers. A computer with a higher flop count will do math faster than a computer with a lower flop count. Coincidentally, math happens to be the only thing computers do.

By contrast, I can do math faster than my younger brother, but he's been drawing beautiful things for years and I can't even make a straight line. It's not for lack of trying. I draw just as much as he does, he just does it better than I do. He has a better internal spatial understanding than I do. That's also why he can parallel park better than I can and was always better at making shit out of modeling clay or duct tape.

But I still have a higher flop count than he does, so what gives??

EDIT:
Similarly, even though the Roadrunner has the highest flop count, that does not make it the ideal computer for every task. For instance, look at how much goddamn space that thing takes up! That instantly rules it out of any "embedded computing" application. It can't be embedded! I also shudder to think at how much power it consumes. That rules it out of any scenario where low-power is a must.

That thing might be capable of petaflops, but there are some applications where a specific "real-time processor" is absolutely necessary. I'm pretty sure most of these have to do with aviation, but don't quote me on that. Texas Instruments makes the fastest "real-time" processors in the world right now and I bet they are better-suited to those applications than the Roadrunner.

This is only a small number of examples. The Roadrunner is objectively the most powerful and the fastest computer in the world, but that does not make it the best or the "smartest" computer in the world, because some computers can do certain jobs better than the Roadrunner ever could.

IQ can be said to be similar. A high IQ reflects a very high mental capacity for tasks that are generally considered vital to the human intellect. So, if you have a high IQ, you might have stronger reasoning powers than most other human beings. But, other people can still be smarter than you in other areas, because you are like the Roadrunner. You need lots of power, lots of space, and a highly-trained, flawless operator in order to do what you do best - which is mostly obscure operations constrained to benchmarking your brain power.

Do you understand? I know my wording was bad.

Oh yeah - my IQ is 176, by the way, and I know lots of people with lower IQ's who are better than me at lots of tasks. In fact, I suck at a lot of things. The benefit to having a high IQ is that I am capable of understanding and accepting the fact that a high IQ only means I APPEAR intelligent to other people.

I'm actually a fucking idiot, as many of you have undoubtedly already realized.

Regardless of how it's designed. It's all measurable and it can all be given a representative number based on it's attributes. Similar to an IQ test.

That's why it's more beneficial to have benchmarks specific to each class of computer rather than one general overall scoreboard, although I am sure somewhere one or more exists.

Are you saying there should be different classes of IQ test for different classes of human beings?

I was saying that trying to boil human intelligence down to a single number with IQ tests was as absurd as trying to do it with computers so you are agreeing by talking about different tests for different classes of computers.

NEXT

Guys, computers and humans are not comparable. That's why computers require human operators. This is a terrible analogy.

Are you saying there should be different classes of IQ test for different classes of human beings?


Owned.

Are you saying there should be different classes of IQ test for different classes of human beings?

I anticipated this kind of response. I almost responded in advance in my last post.

The IQ test is built to test for the traits that make up the very meaning of intelligence. If you changed the test then it wouldn't be measuring intelligence, would it? If you changed the meaning of intelligence then the test wouldn't be a test of intelligence either until they found ways to measure the new traits.
It's rather simple really. You can either answer the tests correctly or not based on your capabilities. You either have high levels of what we call intelligence, or you do not. Love it or hate it your emotions are irrelevant.
Here is one you can think on. Without benchmarking people could you even determine there are different classes in the first place?

Post Script: I forgot to add. can you point at the class of humans that doesn't have the traits of intelligence? I would like to see that.
It's all about the extent of the trait, not the existence.


I was saying that trying to boil human intelligence down to a single number with IQ tests was as absurd as trying to do it with computers so you are agreeing by talking about different tests for different classes of computers.

NEXT

Did you ever consider that the different classes of computers could be comparable to different species of animals? The first computer design, after all, was mechanical, not electronic. Not that this matters, it's just an interesting conversation.

Owned.

Silly nooblet.

@Dread_Lord:
You lose the right to call anyone "nooblet" until you address the points raised in my previous posts.

This thread went to a whole new level of idiocy after the computer analogy was introduced. It's really a perfect demonstration of how many of the people in this thread don't know the first thing about the topics at hand.

T-Zone, I wouldn't bother with Dread_Lord. Eventually he'll get tired of making up bullshit and getting embarassed, he'll disappear for a while, and then pop up with the same bullshit in the next discussion of race or IQ. It's a never-ending cycle with him, so I guess we can just hope that he never gets a chance to raise any children.

@Dread_Lord:
You lose the right to call anyone "nooblet" until you address the points raised in my previous posts.

I'm sorry but I wasn't paying attention to you. Your posts are too long and so I didn't read them. I come here to converse not to read a novel.

Anyways I don't really need to read your novel about FLOPS to know what you are saying. I already know about FLOPS but we are drawing parallels to an IQ test and FLOPS are irrelevant.

Anyways I do agree that it is a bad analogy.

T-Zone, I wouldn't bother with Dread_Lord. Eventually he'll get tired of making up bullshit and getting embarassed, he'll disappear for a while, and then pop up with the same bullshit in the next discussion of race or IQ. It's a never-ending cycle with him, so I guess we can just hope that he never gets a chance to raise any children.

I am actually talking to Dal7 and not Tzone, genius. This post is my first response to Tzone.

That doesn't even make sense. If I am embarrassed why would I come back and argue the same thing? I've lost some arguments, I have been here for like 5 years and have had thousands of posts. You can't win them all, I win a hell of a lot more than I lose. Wasn't it just a couple pages back where you run away from me in debate? hmmm.

If you feel my points in this thread are incorrect then get to debunking, otherwise fuck off.

I'm sorry but I wasn't paying attention to you. Your posts are too long and so I didn't read them. I come here to converse not to read a novel.

Anyways I don't really need to read your novel about FLOPS to know what you are saying. I already know about FLOPS but we are drawing parallels to an IQ test and FLOPS are irrelevant.

Anyways I do agree that it is a bad analogy.



I am actually talking to Dal7 and not Tzone, genius. This post is my first response to Tzone.

That doesn't even make sense. If I am embarrassed why would I come back and argue the same thing? I've lost some arguments, I have been here for like 5 years and have had thousands of posts. You can't win them all, I win a hell of a lot more than I lose. Wasn't it just a couple pages back where you run away from me in debate? hmmm.

If you feel my points in this thread are incorrect then get to debunking, otherwise fuck off.

As I tell you (and idiots like you) on a regular basis, much of what you say is factually incorrect. It's not an issue of me providing a good argument, it's an issue of you not being knowledgeable or educated enough to participate in the argument.

If you were saying one or two things that were wrong, I wouldn't care so much, but when you essentially don't know a single scientific fact about IQ, the brain, or intelligence, there's really nothing I can do beyond pointing you to a library.

But of course, I now know that when faced with the actual facts, you'll either blame "the Jews", or denounce science as rubbish when it doesn't support your delusions.

As I tell you (and idiots like you) on a regular basis, much of what you say is factually incorrect. It's not an issue of me providing a good argument, it's an issue of you not being knowledgeable or educated enough to participate in the argument.

If you were saying one or two things that were wrong, I wouldn't care so much, but when you essentially don't know a single scientific fact about IQ, the brain, or intelligence, there's really nothing I can do beyond pointing you to a library.

But of course, I now know that when faced with the actual facts, you'll either blame "the Jews", or denounce science as rubbish when it doesn't support your delusions.

Longest excuse ever.
Waste of time, put up or shut up. We can pick up where we left off. I believe you were going to explain how there were "different types of intelligence" or something along those lines.

@Dread_Lord:
you are entirely right, I should have actually researched shit and used a clear train of thought to back up my ideas. I'm leaving the exercise to the reader.

Love,
T

Dread Lord I commend your efforts but unfortunately Zay and DerDrache are arguing for no reason other than they are mestizo and negroid, in that order. It is futile to attempt to instill within them any kind of logic or knowledge, for their egotistical, ignorant psyche's will not allow it.

The amount of time dread_lord spends arguing his case is proportional to his desire to attach himself to some group for lack of own sense of self-worth and personal accomplishment. If I sucked at life so bad I might want to brag about how I have the same color skin as successful people as well.

That is all slightly less relevant to the topic at hand, but I mean only slightly. I'm not arguing that IQ tests are completely worthless, just largely worthless as I can quote even more and more variables that skew the outcomes of them. Does the reality that some groups of people score slightly higher on IQ tests than others bother me? Not one fucking bit, at all. Once all factors are weighed in, no significant differences in IQ justify different personal treatment or even merit stereotyping at all. On a day to day basis I don't meet a bunch of people with numbers over their heads.

If you feel audacious enough to try to bring personal bias into all this, then the aforementioned is valid. Dread_lord is dogmatic about IQ because his belief system depends on it, that's why he can invent excuses to ignore well-documented flaws in IQ tests, and then provide superficial counter-examples, such as the tibetan monk example.

I believe you were going to explain how there were "different types of intelligence" or something along those lines.
According to gardener;
Linguistic, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, spatial, musical...
Or is this just something the zionists pulled out of their ass?

Not everyone good at solving math problems is good at judging space/distance using just their eyes, or good at dissecting a symphony orchestra, or is a deep philosopher.

If success is restricted by IQ, then explain this:
University of Georgia and Harvard geodemographer Jon Robbin. Robbin may wish he’d majored in socializing at L.S.U., instead, because the numbers show the average millionaire had a lowly 2.92 GPA, SAT scores between 1100 and 1190, and teachers who told them they were mediocre students but personable people. “Discipline 101 and Tenacity 102″ made them rich. Stanley got straight C’s in English and writing, but he had money-minded drive. He urges you to pattern your life according to Yale professor Robert Sternberg’s Successful Intelligence, because Stanley’s statistics bear out Sternberg’s theories on what makes minds succeed–and it ain’t IQ.
http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230579216&sr=8-1

Seriously, I understand racist theory. It's occams razor, the problem is that racialists continue to ignore decades of anthropologic, linguistic, environmental, and numerous other factors that explain the tech boom in europe. The prospect doesn't look too good for IQ.

The amount of time dread_lord spends arguing his case is proportional to his desire to attach himself to some group for lack of own sense of self-worth and personal accomplishment. If I sucked at life so bad I might want to brag about how I have the same color skin as successful people as well.


Please show your math on that lol.
Zay, how would even determine that? What exactly is it that I do for a living? What exactly have I failed to accomplish? Wait, here is a better one. Who am I? Do you even know me?


According to gardener;
Linguistic, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, spatial, musical...
Or is this just something the zionists pulled out of their ass?

Not everyone good at solving math problems is good at judging space/distance using just their eyes, or good at dissecting a symphony orchestra, or is a deep philosopher.

If success is restricted by IQ, then explain this:

You know those capabilities have words that describe them perfectly. None of those words are intelligence.
Intelligence is one thing, those capabilities are another. It's really simple.
By the way, success is not an indication of intelligence. It correlates in many cases but success is subjective and superficial. You're argument seems to be that is one is successful they are intelligent. Not the case and reversed it's the same. You don't have to be intelligent to be successful.

I don't know about Zionism but if you look at the main critics of intelligence and tests to determine intelligence they are usually Jewish. Gardener, Boeree, Gould, etc. I am sure if we work at it we can work out a good conspiracy to explain why Jews find it so important to redefine intelligence and disrupt attempts to measure it.



Seriously, I understand racist theory. It's occams razor, the problem is that racialists continue to ignore decades of anthropologic, linguistic, environmental, and numerous other factors that explain the tech boom in europe. The prospect doesn't look too good for IQ.

Jared Diamond is also a Jew.

lulz.

The amount of time dread_lord spends arguing his case is proportional to his desire to attach himself to some group for lack of own sense of self-worth and personal accomplishment. If I sucked at life so bad I might want to brag about how I have the same color skin as successful people as well.

I have a question, what have you accomplished in life?

I don't know about Zionism but if you look at the main critics of intelligence and tests to determine intelligence they are usually Jewish. Gardener, Boeree, Gould, etc. I am sure if we work at it we can work out a good conspiracy to explain why Jews find it so important to redefine intelligence and disrupt attempts to measure it.


Strange, I didn't know that the vast majority of scientists were Jewish.

Strange, I didn't know that the vast majority of scientists were Jewish.

That's interesting. Show me your data that suggests the vast majority of scientists believe what you claim they believe.
In fact, what scientists? Physicists? Chemists? What scientists are you even talking about? Would it be logical to assume a physicist is trained to have an accurate bearing on this subject?

It's not true that the vast majority of scientists believe race isn't reality.

That's interesting. Show me your data that suggests the vast majority of scientists believe what you claim they believe.
In fact, what scientists? Physicists? Chemists? What scientists are you even talking about? Would it be logical to assume a physicist is trained to have an accurate bearing on this subject?

Following the scientific method is incompatible with racism, as well as with your delusional beliefs and assumptions about IQ tests and intelligence. Strictly speaking, someone who believes in such things is not really a scientist.

Really? So James Watson isn't a scientist?

Really? So James Watson isn't a scientist?

You can't pick and choose when to use the scientific method. He probably could be considered a scientist in a specific range of topics, and he certainly did some important scientific work in genetics, but no, in the present, I do not respect him as a "scientist" in the general sense of the word.

If someone is willing to completely disregard things like validity, reliability, and critical thinking in one field, how the hell can you trust them in another field? Luckily, scientists, unlike idiots, tend not to blindly trust anyone.

i like to get a rise out of people by pretending to be a furious racialist on the internet

I don't see why you think anyone gives a shit about who you respect, especially in regards to scientists, you're a nobody. I'd only trust you to give me examples of rap artists and basketball players to respect and not to respect.

You are the same person who said something along the lines of "Common sense and perception is more important than following the scientific method." Whether you're trolling or just stupid, you've got no ground to stand on.

Following the scientific method is incompatible with racism, as well as with your delusional beliefs and assumptions about IQ tests and intelligence. Strictly speaking, someone who believes in such things is not really a scientist.

Following the scientific method is incompatible with liberalism, as well as with your delusional beliefs and assumptions about IQ tests and intelligence. Strictly speaking, someone who believes in such things is not really a scientist.

See what I did there?

The difference though is that conservative scientists usually don't manipulate their data to suit their purpose. I wish I could say the same for liberal Marxist scientists like Franz Boas who manipulated studies and data to show that race was a social construct. Or Gould who did the same to try and prove that human brain size was a racist method of determining intelligence when all data had previously shown that it correlates very well. Then you have Jared Diamond who spins a good tale to try and show that Niggers couldn't develop societies because they lived on a resource rich continent.

Following the scientific method is incompatible with liberalism, as well as with your delusional beliefs and assumptions about IQ tests and intelligence. Strictly speaking, someone who believes in such things is not really a scientist.

See what I did there?
.

Completely missed the point? Liberalism and conservativism have nothing to do with what I said.

Racism is incompatible with the scientific method, because if you follow the scientific method, you will find no evidence supporting the idea that one "race" is genetically "smarter". You'll also find no solid evidence that intelligence is "one thing", that IQ is determined, or that IQ tests accurately and invariably predict one's cognitive abilities. As I've told you on previous occasions, real scientific studies are presented in full, explicit detail and the results are reproduced and reconfirmed. Pseudo-science is subjected to the same scrutiny, and when the method and conclusions are inevitably torn a new one, you children start whining about "the Jews" or "liberals".

Grow up and start using your brain.

By the way, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, you want to discuss IQ and intelligence and use them as so-called "scientific support" for your views, yet you also refuse to actually accept the scientific method, or get an education in the topics you want to discuss. How exactly do you have unflinching conclusions about the science of the brain or genes when you have no education in the fields, and only listen to a fringe subset of "scientists", with whom the vast majority of scientists strongly disagree? It's utterly insane.

... I do not respect him as a "scientist" in the general sense of the word.

In that case the same must go for Sir Isaac Newton.

Same goes for Benjamin Franklin and basically every other historically memorable scientist.

Completely missed the point? Liberalism and conservativism have nothing to do with what I said.

Racism is incompatible with the scientific method, because if you follow the scientific method, you will find no evidence supporting the idea that one "race" is genetically "smarter". You'll also find no solid evidence that intelligence is "one thing", that IQ is determined, or that IQ tests accurately and invariably predict one's cognitive abilities. As I've told you on previous occasions, real scientific studies are presented in full, explicit detail and the results are reproduced and reconfirmed. Pseudo-science is subjected to the same scrutiny, and when the method and conclusions are inevitably torn a new one, you children start whining about "the Jews" or "liberals".

Grow up and start using your brain.

By the way, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, you want to discuss IQ and intelligence and use them as so-called "scientific support" for your views, yet you also refuse to actually accept the scientific method, or get an education in the topics you want to discuss. How exactly do you have unflinching conclusions about the science of the brain or genes when you have no education in the fields, and only listen to a fringe subset of "scientists", with whom the vast majority of scientists strongly disagree? It's utterly insane.

You don't listen very well. You see what you just said is the result of claims made by scientific liberalism. There really is such a thing. The fact of the matter, whether you are willing to accept it or not, is that IQ was not only created to determine a persons intelligence but it's still used by scientists around the world to the very same thing.
The other fact about IQ you refuse to accept is that also correlates with brain sizing as well as other test scores.
I can have my cake and eat it too, in fact I just had a cake and ate it the other day.
My political views are based around a very simple concept. Multiculturalism being detrimental. If you would like why don't you put that statement to the scientific method and see how stupid you sound. My personal racial views are based off of behavioral genetics which are issues we can't study because of multicultural friction in the first place. I am also assuming you have never heard of genetic similarity that partially does support my claims on multiculturalism. Anyways I found an article I want you to read by a Professor from a college here in California. I will post it below.

Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb260xBL96I
More from Rushton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvk8HF5hmtM&feature=related
A crash course on racial genetics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShLF3e9YHg8&feature=related

Enjoy.


White Ethnocentrism: Can Americans Really Be Brainwashed?

By Kevin MacDonald

One of the great intellectual divides is the venerable nature/nurture dichotomy.

Conservatives tend to be on the side of nature:

Race exists as a biological reality; there are race differences in socially important traits like IQ; people’s brains are wired to prefer people like themselves; they are more likely to contribute to public goods like health care and education if the beneficiaries are of the same ethnic group; people trust others more if they live in homogeneous societies.

The left takes the opposite tack:

Race doesn’t exist; the idea that it does exist is a fantasy of moral reprobates. To the extent that differences in traits like IQ are interesting at all, they are the result of capitalism, discrimination, or general evil. If it weren’t for white people behaving badly, we could easily build a strong, racially diverse multicultural society where all people can live happily ever after.

I am not going to try to convince you of the merits of either side of this debate. Over the years, VDARE.COM has certainly published some of the premier writers on the nature side.

But if you pick up the New York Times, you’ll get a very different version of these issues. It’s a version which, sad to say, has a lot more influence.

So what makes culture so powerful and how does it work at the psychological level?

Psychologists have shown that there are two different types of processing systems—the implicit and the explicit.

Implicit processing is the way the ancient parts of our brain operate—automatically and unconsciously.

Say you are talking to a salesman about a used car. Without any conscious effort on your part, your brain is processing an enormous amount of information. Some parts of your brain are processing the colors and shapes of the furniture, while others are responsible for recognizing the face of the salesman and picking up on his emotional expressions. Your brain is also assessing how similar this salesman is to yourself, and, without any conscious awareness on your part, it is making you trust him more if he is more like yourself. Furthermore, if he is from a different race or ethnic group, it is flagging that fact and it is coloring your interactions with stereotypes—whether negative or positive—that your unconscious mind associates with that race or ethnic group.

These implicit mechanisms - psychologists call them “modules” - are like zombies or robots. They go about their business without any conscious effort, and quite a few of them are beyond our control.

A good example is the face recognition module. If I am looking at someone I know, I can’t help but recognize him. I can’t simply turn off the module. The module takes in the information from the environment and simply does its thing in a preprogrammed way.

Importantly, the implicit brain includes mechanisms related to ethnocentrism. There are several different evolved mechanisms that make us prefer people like ourselves and be wary of people in outgroups.

Phil Rushton’s Genetic Similarity Theory [PDF] is a good example. Birds of a feather do indeed flock together. People tend to make friends and marry people who are like themselves on a wide range of traits, from IQ and personality, to ethnic group and even wrist size.

Research in Genetic Similarity Theory finds a biological basis to this flocking tendency. Each system of genes wants to reporoduce itself, and has the best chance of doing so if it chooses to mate with a system of genes which has some overlap.

But some aspects of ethnocentrism may be learned as well. The human mind is prone to rapidly learning negative stereotypes about outgroups. And even if these stereotypes are learned, they act just like the biological ones—they are triggered automatically via implicit processing.

The point is that in either case people tend to have negative stereotypes of other races and they prefer people from their own race. But, of course, that’s not the end of the story—only the beginning.

The other part of the brain is the more recently evolved part—the part responsible for explicit processing. Explicit processing involves language and thought.

The implicit brain processes information in a zombie-like reflexive way, but explicit processing is effortful and controlled. It’s the kind of processing that we use when we are solving a problem in math class, where we have to make a plan to solve the problem.

And it’s the part of the brain that takes in cultural information. When a person reads the New York Times, there a lot of explicit messages—immigration is good; people who oppose immigration are uneducated racist Neanderthals; there are no genetic differences between the races, yada, yada.

It’s easy to see that there can be conflicts between implicit processing of our ancient brain and the explicit messages one gets from the New York Times. The implicit part of the brain makes you more comfortable socializing with people like yourself. In fact, the implicit part of the brain leads white people to seek out implicit white communities — communities like NASCAR, country music, and certain kinds of rock music (like AC/DC) where the faces are pretty much all white.

White flight is one of the most salient phenomena of the late 20th century. And where are these white people fleeing to? To the suburbs where there are lots of other white people and where their children go to schools with other white children.

As sociologist Kevin Kruse notes in his book White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism, race is never part of the explicit rhetoric of white flight. Instead, white flight tends to be expressed as opposition to the federal government, the welfare state, taxation, and perceived moral dangers like abortion and homosexuality. But at the implicit level, the desire for white communities and the aversion to contributing to public goods for nonwhites are the overriding motivations.

Each of these identities allows white people to associate with other whites without any explicit acknowledgement that race plays a role.

Indeed, the granddaddy of implicit white communities is the Republican Party. In the recent election, the Republicans received at least 90% of their votes from white people. The delegates to the Republican convention in August were 93% white, 5% Latino, and 2% black. If these were all rich white oligarchs at the Republican convention, as Jon Stewart’s Daily Show would have it, that would be one thing.


But most Republicans are not rich white oligarchs. The fact is that the Republican base is really about the Sarah Palin phenomenon—white Christians—many with small town roots in the South and West—who yearn for the America they are rapidly losing: a white America.

But all of that is down deep in their brains, at the implicit level. In the upper reaches of their prefrontal cortex, they would never dream of saying explicitly that they are a party of white Americans. That would be "racist."

The same goes for their spokesmen—although calling these people spokesmen for the Republican base is being a bit generous. “Conservative” commentators like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly studiously avoid saying anything that could be construed as "racist". Nor do they dare to oppose the massive legal immigration that will make the Republican base a permanent electoral minority even if we stopped illegal immigration immediately. That’s because the explicit processing system is in charge, at least at the conscious level.

Here’s how it works. Implicit attitudes on race are assessed by tests like the Implicit Association Test. (You can take the test here.) Subjects are presented with photos of blacks and whites in succession and asked to pair positive or negative words (e.g., "intelligent," "law-abiding," "poor," "success") with the photos.

Eighty percent of whites take longer to associate positive words with blacks than with whites. This is interpreted as indicating that whites have implicit negative stereotypes of blacks.

The interesting thing is that there is a gap between whites’ explicitly positive attitudes about blacks and their implicitly negative attitudes. Even white liberals show implicit negative attitudes toward blacks, although their implicit attitudes are less negative than those of conservatives.

In fact, white liberals are more hypocritical about race than conservatives: There is a larger gap between implicit attitudes and explicit attitudes toward blacks among white liberals than among white conservatives.

What’s happening is that the conscious, explicit brain is thinking positive thoughts about blacks because it reads the New York Times. And it is suppressing the negative thoughts that are deep below the surface in the implicit part of the brain.

In one study, subjects were shown photos of blacks and whites while hooked up to an fMRI machine that takes pictures of the brain in action. When the photos were shown for very brief periods—too short to be explicitly processed, the fMRI showed that whites had a negative response to the photos of blacks. This procedure therefore measures implicit negative attitudes toward blacks.

However, the photos of blacks were presented for a much longer period, so that they were processed by the explicit part of the brain. The difference in negative reaction to black and white faces decreased.

This happened because the prefrontal cortex and explicit processing were activated. In other words, people who are consciously aware that they are seeing photos of blacks are able to suppress the negative automatic responses produced by their ancient brain. The explicit part of the brain suppresses the implicit part.

So implicitly processed feelings and perceptions are suppressed out of conscious awareness. But that doesn’t mean they have no influence. Besides affecting responses on the Implicit Association Test, the implicit brain is seeking out white communities like the Republican Party, and it has negative gut feelings about massive non-white immigration.

This disconnect between the implicit and the explicit brain produces some interesting phenomena. Young children tend to have unabashedly explicit bias in favor of their own race. Explicit race bias emerges early, as young as age three or four, peaks in middle childhood, and then undergoes a gradual decline through adolescence, and disappears in adulthood. Quite a bit of this decline is doubtless due to active campaigns to instill the official racial ideology of the Left in schools. Multicultural propaganda permeates education, from kindergarten through college, pushed by groups of cultural Marxists such as the National Association for Multicultural Education: "NAME celebrates cultural and ethnic diversity as a national strength that enriches a society and rejects the view that diversity threatens the fabric of a society."

However, there is no such decline in implicit racial preferences, which remain strong into adulthood. Indeed, there is also a decline in cross-racial friends and companions as children get older. White schoolchildren are much more likely to have white friends than chance expectation would account for, and this trend increases as they get older.

This means that at the same time that explicit racial preference in white children is declining, children are becoming less and less likely to actually interact with and form friendships with children from other races. In effect, schools undergo a process of self-segregation. And among adults, whites are significantly less likely than other racial groups to report interracial friendships and contacts.

The bottom line, then, is that as children get older they become increasingly aware of the official explicit racial ideology, and they conform to it. The explicit processing centers are becoming stronger, so that they are better able to suppress positive attitudes about their own race in order to conform to the demands of their teachers. At the explicit level, they are free from any negative attitudes toward nonwhite groups and may even be politically liberal or radical.

At the same time, however, they are "voting with their feet" by choosing friends and companions of the same race.

And their parents are doing the same thing. I have noted that liberals show a greater gap between explicit attitudes and implicit attitudes and behavior than do conservatives. Indeed, while highly educated white parents tend to have liberal explicit attitudes on racial issues, a recent study shows that these same highly educated whites seek out schools that are racially segregated and are more likely to live in racially segregated neighborhoods. In other words, there is a positive correlation between the average education of white parents and the likelihood that parents will remove their children from public schools as the percentage of black students increases.

Michael Emerson, an author of the study, is quite aware of the gap between explicit attitudes and behavior. He writes:

"I do believe that white people are being sincere when they claim that racial inequality is not a good thing and that they’d like to see it eliminated. However…their liberal attitudes about race aren’t reflected in their behavior."

The explicit parts of their brains have been programmed to say and believe the right things. But the implicit parts of their brain are controlling their behavior.

This might be cause for hope for those of us whose explicit brain is more in tune with their implicit brain.

But the fact is that if explicit messages on race are repeated often enough, they start to become automatic and implicit. People can be brainwashed. This is the great hope of the cultural Marxists—that constant repetition and propaganda actually could produce what the Frankfurt School — the fons et origo of cultural Marxism in the West — called a "genuine liberal": someone who in his heart of hearts really has the gut instincts of a cultural Marxist; a white person who prefers non-whites on an Implicit Association Test.

They have a ways to go on that. But the election of Barack Obama will probably aid the cultural Marxist onslaught on the educational system. I can’t see any principles of human psychology that would prevent them from getting there eventually. (Of course the collapse of the Soviet Union indicates that religion and national identity are harder to eradicate than Stalin thought they were, and he tried very hard.) It would probably take a 1984-like police state to do it. But quite obviously that is not seen as a drawback by its proponents.

My conclusion: The New York Times is important because it and media like it control the explicit messages on vital issues like race and immigration. The culture of critique has become the explicit culture of the West, endlessly repeated in media messages but packaged differently for people of different levels of intelligence and education.

The message here is that by programming the higher areas of the brain, this explicit culture is able to control the implicit ethnocentric tendencies of white people.

The explicit culture may not be able to prevent white people from moving to white neighborhoods, and it may not prevent them from going to a NASCAR race. But it does make them supine in the face of a massive invasion of other peoples and cultures. It prevents the Republican Party from saying explicitly that they are a party of European-Americans intent on ending immigration and retaining their political majority and their cultural dominance. And it makes them cringe in horror when someone calls them a “racist”.

In attempting to find a way out of this morass, therefore, changing the explicit culture is critical. That’s why media like VDARE.COM and my own The Occidental Observer are so important. To paraphrase Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign slogan, it’s the explicit culture, stupid.

Changing the explicit culture won’t be easy. I suggest that the first step is a psychological one: Proud and confident explicit assertions of ethnic identity and interests among white people, and the creation of communities where such explicit assertions are considered normal and natural rather than a reason for ostracism.

The fact that such assertions appeal to our implicit psychology is certainly an asset. It’s always easier to go with a natural tendency than to oppose it.

And in this case, our natural preference for people like ourselves is intellectually defensible: That is, it can withstand the probing rationality of the explicit processing system.

It’s the ideology of New York Times and the cultural Marxists that can’t withstand intellectual scrutiny.

Finished.

Then you have Jared Diamond who spins a good tale to try and show that Niggers couldn't develop societies because they lived on a resource rich continent.

Just as I predicted earlier, you're very good at advertising your own idiocy and ignorance. What proper substitutes for wheat and barley did the sub saharan africans have? What about the fact that even with all our knowledge of husbandry and breeding we still don't have domesticated zebras or any other animal from the Savannah? Don't reject a theory you know NOTHING about you brain-deficient derelict dumbfuck.

Like I said, you made Occam cry. Your excuse for not learning more about real anthropology and understanding a more complex explanation than the one you know is some mythology about "jews."

BTW, I believe in objective morality defined by the scientific method, and I consider some cultures superior to others. We can have ethnic diversity without multiculturalism, and no amount of ridiculousness from you can reject the fact that the bell curve of all the races OVERLAP. That includes millions of blacks smarter than you.

I don't know about Zionism but if you look at the main critics of intelligence and tests to determine intelligence they are usually Jewish. Gardener, Boeree, Gould, etc. I am sure if we work at it we can work out a good conspiracy to explain why Jews find it so important to redefine intelligence and disrupt attempts to measure it.

Jared Diamond is also a Jew.

lulz.

Like a Christian reinterpreting the bible every time a nail is hammered into its coffin, right? Ashkenazi Jews score higher than whites on intelligence tests. So do asians. Umm jews are conspiring and asians have a tighter bell curve, so they don't produce as many "geniuses."

How do you explain the fact that the chinese had superior Junks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_(ship)) , larger and superior to Columbus' Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria, decades before Columbus? A government that lacked the foresight and motivation decided not to go on a mercantilist rampage, so the Chinese must be inferior.

People that have had brain damage to their emotional centers in the brain have shown the lack of ability to make rational decisions. Intelligence is not some magical trait that on its own explains human development, that's why IQ studies have largely been dismissed as more and more factors have been weighed in. Maybe the Jews do that because they're smart?

Finished.

Someone should tell that moron that ALL cultural views are a form of "brainwashing." His whole belief in marxist jewish conspiracy to reprogram whites completely discredits him. If you want real science on those tests, read malcolm gladwells " blink". On the same tests, whites give asians positive associations. That can only be explained by culture. I'm sure if you tested the world war 2 generation and showed them pictures of japanese people, they wouldn't score much better than blacks.

Just as I predicted earlier, you're very good at advertising your own idiocy and ignorance. What proper substitutes for wheat and barley did the sub saharan africans have? What about the fact that even with all our knowledge of husbandry and breeding we still don't have domesticated zebras or any other animal from the Savannah? Don't reject a theory you know NOTHING about you brain-deficient derelict dumbfuck.

First of all I have the book sitting in front of me right now.
Wheat and Barley are not the issue. Africa had, and still has, animals capable of domestication as well as a wide variety of food crops.


Like I said, you made Occam cry. Your excuse for not learning more about real anthropology and understanding a more complex explanation than the one you know is some mythology about "jews."

The story about Franz Boas manipulating his studies is very real. Other than that what Anthropology are you talking about?

BTW, I believe in objective morality defined by the scientific method, and I consider some cultures superior to others. We can have ethnic diversity without multiculturalism, and no amount of ridiculousness from you can reject the fact that the bell curve of all the races OVERLAP. That includes millions of blacks smarter than you.

Prove it.
I agree that there are blacks smarter than me. I never said there were not.
Nice straw man.

Someone should tell that moron that ALL cultural views are a form of "brainwashing." His whole belief in marxist jewish conspiracy to reprogram whites completely discredits him. If you want real science on those tests, read malcolm gladwells " blink". On the same tests, whites give asians positive associations. That can only be explained by culture. I'm sure if you tested the world war 2 generation and showed them pictures of japanese people, they wouldn't score much better than blacks.

You're stupid, you know that. You just threw objective right out the window.
Macdonald is actually talking about people who are OPENLY MARXIST and have been actually caught doctoring their studies in some cases.
Aside from that you are arguing something you cannot prove. "I'm sure if you tested world war 2 generations" etc. That comment in particular is what I am speaking about.
Well, prove it, ass clown. Prove what you just said don't just say it and expect it to be believed because it sounds possible.

Like a Christian reinterpreting the bible every time a nail is hammered into its coffin, right? Ashkenazi Jews score higher than whites on intelligence tests. So do asians. Umm jews are conspiring and asians have a tighter bell curve, so they don't produce as many "geniuses."

Another straw man. Jews are intelligent, but many Jews are white or have largely white ancestors don't they?
Other studies have suggested that Episcopalians actually score higher than Jews.
It's as if you don't realize that you are measuring the IQ results of a Religion against a race, now that I think about it.
But yes, Jews do seem to do the same things regarding race that Christians do regarding their religions, if that's what you meant.


How do you explain the fact that the chinese had superior Junks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_(ship)) , larger and superior to Columbus' Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria, decades before Columbus? A government that lacked the foresight and motivation decided not to go on a mercantilist rampage, so the Chinese must be inferior.

Depends on what you would consider inferior in this particular case. We can discuss opinion all you want but I thought you were interested in objectiveness.

People that have had brain damage to their emotional centers in the brain have shown the lack of ability to make rational decisions. Intelligence is not some magical trait that on its own explains human development, that's why IQ studies have largely been dismissed as more and more factors have been weighed in. Maybe the Jews do that because they're smart?

Interestingly enough one of the videos I posted of Dr. Phillipe Rushton has a small portion where he discusses that environment does make up a portion of intelligence.

Maybe you should show how IQ studies are dismissed because last I checked they are still widely used and relied upon by scientists the world over.

Maybe you should show how IQ studies are dismissed because last I checked they are still widely used and relied upon by scientists the world over.

lol, appeal to authority

(I noticed you are big on the whole traditional logic thingy.)

My personal racial views are based off of behavioral genetics which are issues we can't study because of multicultural friction in the first place. ]

Beautiful. You've just completely discredited yourself. You've just said that you have racial views based on genetics (false), yet you also admit that not enough research has been done on genetics for you to draw that conclusion (true). I should add, by the way, that you are not a racist as a result of finding evidence. You are racist first, and then you seek out information to confirm your delusions.

The only "evidence" that you're capable of providing is biased, second-hand editorials. The thing about data is that it usually can be interpreted in several ways, and there are rarely clear conclusions, despite what racist propoganda suggests. Provide me with some specific, peer-reviewed, published studies. Provide the hard data, and we can all observe together just how large of a leap of faith that propogandists take.

If a real scientist looks at data from an IQ study among different "racial" groups, he says "Black students score lower than white students, on average. Hmm...what's different between black and white students? Culture, some genetic variance, and socioeconomic status. I guess we'll have to do more research."

When a moron looks at the same data, he sees "Black people have a lower IQ, thus a lower intelligence, and it's because of their genes."

You might be interested to know, a recent study found that white working class students in Britain on average had the worst performance in school (only 15% had 5 good GSCEs, in comparison to 30+% of poor non-whites, and 45% of affluent whites). MUST BE TEH GENES! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7220683.stm

Of course, I already know your reaction to such information: When poor white people perform poorly, you'll undoubtedly view it as a result of their culture and SES. Yet the same performance from poor black Americans is support for your racist nonsense. So predictable...

Beautiful. You've just completely discredited yourself. You've just said that you have racial views based on genetics (false), yet you also admit that not enough research has been done on genetics for you to draw that conclusion (true). I should add, by the way, that you are not a racist as a result of finding evidence. You are racist first, and then you seek out information to confirm your delusions.

Your failure to understand my comment does not discredit me. I stated that we could not study it because of multicultural friction. I did not state that no studies have been done or that there isn't data suggesting that there are differences between races concerning behavior. This threads topic should hint to that fact.
You're an idiot and you hear what you want to hear.



The only "evidence" that you're capable of providing is biased, second-hand editorials. The thing about data is that it usually can be interpreted in several ways, and there are rarely clear conclusions, despite what racist propoganda suggests. Provide me with some specific, peer-reviewed, published studies. Provide the hard data, and we can all observe together just how large of a leap of faith that propogandists take.

It's not biased. You think it's biased because they are simply stating facts that you disagree with based on your emotions, rather than having read the test results for yourself. I can provide you with some authors and books you should read, but scientific studies on the net are usually not free or available for download.

If a real scientist looks at data from an IQ study among different "racial" groups, he says "Black students score lower than white students, on average. Hmm...what's different between black and white students? Culture, some genetic variance, and socioeconomic status. I guess we'll have to do more research."

I have been quoting "real scientists" this entire time. You choose not to believe them because you have an opinion that does not allow you to objectively review the data their studies contain.
Black students do score lower than whites, worldwide. Regardless of their economic status or culture. It's called reality you just choose to ignore it.

When a moron looks at the same data, he sees "Black people have a lower IQ, thus a lower intelligence, and it's because of their genes."

IQ is a test of intelligence, therefore they do have lower intelligence. You have yet to show that IQ is not a test of intelligence, instead you have attempted to change the definition of intelligence so that you could attempt to show blacks are intelligent and that testing is not fair because they can't do what every other race can.

You might be interested to know, a recent study found that white working class students in Britain on average had the worst performance in school (only 15% had 5 good GSCEs, in comparison to 30+% of poor non-whites, and 45% of affluent whites). MUST BE TEH GENES! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7220683.stm

As I pointed in one of my firsts posts in this thread that certain factors can have an affect on a persons intellectual performance. It's only logical. You again, only hear what you want.

Of course, I already know your reaction to such information: When poor white people perform poorly, you'll undoubtedly view it as a result of their culture and SES. Yet the same performance from poor black Americans is support for your racist nonsense. So predictable...


Yet white people don't perform poorly worldwide do they? What you have here is the exception, not the rule and given that the study flies in the face of every study before it it's more than likely incorrect or even a forgery. This isn't even a study, it's a news story and news is bullshit.
See what you're doing here? You chose the results of one study (among thousands) that supported your views.
Notice it even points something out you choose to not see.
To have 85% of white boys from poor families failing to achieve five good GCSEs including English and maths is truly shocking.

I bet you money they scored higher than black students of the same circumstances.

It's not biased. You think it's biased because they are simply stating facts that you disagree with based on your emotions, rather than having read the test results for yourself. I can provide you with some authors and books you should read, but scientific studies on the net are usually not free or available for download.


Post the studies. I don't want The Bell Curve. I want the raw data and the write-ups of the specific studies, not an interpretation of the results by a racist. If you can't provide that, then you have nothing. I can get access to just about any rubbish you want to provide. Do it and stop making excuses.



Black students do score lower than whites, worldwide. Regardless of their economic status or culture. It's called reality you just choose to ignore it.


False. Black students on average score lower, and it is not regardless of their culture. Studies found that blacks in a higher SES bracket also performed poorly, but it did not eliminate the cultural variable. A study has yet to be done that raised a black and white student in 100% identical conditions and observed their performance. Until such a study is done, you are not being objective.


IQ is a test of intelligence, therefore they do have lower intelligence. You have yet to show that IQ is not a test of intelligence, instead you have attempted to change the definition of intelligence so that you could attempt to show blacks are intelligent and that testing is not fair because they can't do what every other race can.


On the contrary, you continue to talk out of your ass, although you know you have no formal education on the subject. IQ is not a measure of intelligence. It's a measure of several cognitive abilities. 1) That does not mean you can reduce the quality of one's cognitive abilities to one static number, and 2) the effect of genes on one's cognitive abilities has not been quanitified, whereas it's been thoroughly shown that culture alone can be the difference between being "smart" and being someone like you.


Yet white people don't perform poorly worldwide do they? What you have here is the exception, not the rule and given that the study flies in the face of every study before it it's more than likely incorrect or even a forgery.
See what you're doing here? You chose the results of one study (among thousands) that supported your views.
Notice it even points something out you choose to not see.
.

It's not the exception to the rule. It is the rule. People in intellectually poor (and usually socioeconomically poor) environments perform poorly all over the world. You can find this correlation anywhere, all over the world, within any "race".

Are you trying to suggest that the working class whites who performed poorly did so because they had inferior genes? Well...I'll give you points for being consistent.

By the way, like I already said, working class non-whites (including blacks) performed better than working class whites. The working class whites were at the bottom the totem-pole.

--

I'm sick of this nature versus nurture debate. The nurture side has plenty of supporting evidence, and the nature advocates have yet to pinpoint hardly any genes related to IQ scores, how these genes interact with the environment, or how these genes are distributed among the races.

Provide that data, and I will have NO ground to stand on. For a geneticist to come to the conclusion that nature plays a significant role in IQ scores or intelligence, then at the very least he should have identified ALL of genes that affect IQ scores. At the very least he should identify what the specific genetic differences are between whites and blacks.

You can end this all if you provide the hard evidence. Genes determine intelligence? Fine. Show me what genes have what effect on intelligence, and how these genes are distributed among the races. Show me that the differences in races' average IQ scores is due to genes and not environment. Please. I really would like to be enlightened.

No editorials, no books, just hard data that clearly shows the direct link between genes, race, and IQ test performance.

Post the studies. I don't want The Bell Curve. I want the raw data and the write-ups of the specific studies, not an interpretation of the results by a racist. If you can't provide that, then you have nothing. I can get access to just about any rubbish you want to provide. Do it and stop making excuses.

Which is a response to:
"I can provide you with some authors and books you should read, but scientific studies on the net are usually not free or available for download."

If you think you can find it I will provide you a reading list.
The G Factor by Arthur Jensen. Also look for bias in mental testing by Jensen and his other books are good too.
IQ and the Wealth of Nations By Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen.
Why race matters: Race differences and what they mean by Michael Levin (this ones a Jew you should be able to agree with it)
Race, Evolution, and behavior by P. Rushton.
Any book on Behavioral Genetics would do you good now that I think about it.
That would be my starter list. These books describe the methods they used and the results all written by researchers.

If I can suggest where you might find them I would say try MiRC servers.


False. Black students on average score lower, and it is not regardless of their culture. Studies found that blacks in a higher SES bracket also performed poorly, but it did not eliminate the cultural variable. A study has yet to be done that raised a black and white student in 100% identical conditions and observed their performance. Until such a study is done, you are not being objective.

No it's not false. You can't get an average lower than the rest of the world without scoring, on average, lower than the rest of the world. The statement is true.
For about a decade now we have been listening to idiots like you attempting to close the black white IQ and Education gap and it doesn't work. Know why? Because culture is also affected by intelligence.


On the contrary, you continue to talk out of your ass, although you know you have no formal education on the subject. IQ is not a measure of intelligence. It's a measure of several cognitive abilities. 1) That does not mean you can reduce the quality of one's cognitive abilities to one static number, and 2) the effect of genes on one's cognitive abilities has not been quanitified, whereas it's been thoroughly shown that culture alone can be the difference between being "smart" and being someone like you.


IQ is a measure of several cognitive abilities. No shit. What you fail to realize, still after several posts of me attempting to explain it to you, is that INTELLIGENCE IS MADE UP OF COGNITIVE ABILITIES THAT IQ TESTS MEASURE. Read some of the books I recommended and figure it out for yourself.


It's not the exception to the rule. It is the rule. People in intellectually poor (and usually socioeconomically poor) environments perform poorly all over the world. You can find this correlation anywhere, all over the world, within any "race".

Are you trying to suggest that the working class whites who performed poorly did so because they had inferior genes? Well...I'll give you points for being consistent.

By the way, like I already said, working class non-whites (including blacks) performed better than working class whites. The working class whites were at the bottom the totem-pole.

No, you fucking idiot as I stated before (twice now) there are circumstances that can biologically affect someones intellect.
You said that blacks performed better, but you did not provide proof of it. Neither did your article.

I'm sick of this nature versus nurture debate. The nurture side has plenty of supporting evidence, and the nature advocates have yet to pinpoint hardly any genes related to IQ scores, how these genes interact with the environment, or how these genes are distributed among the races.

Provide that data, and I will have NO ground to stand on. For a geneticist to come to the conclusion that nature plays a significant role in IQ scores or intelligence, then at the very least he should have identified ALL of genes that affect IQ scores. At the very least he should identify what the specific genetic differences are between whites and blacks.

You can end this all if you provide the hard evidence. Genes determine intelligence? Fine. Show me what genes have what effect on intelligence, and how these genes are distributed among the races. Show me that the differences in races' average IQ scores is due to genes and not environment. Please. I really would like to be enlightened.

No editorials, no books, just hard data that clearly shows the direct link between genes, race, and IQ test performance.

It's not a question of Nature or Nurture. Both play a role but you refuse to accept that. You suggest that Nurture is the only determining factor based on long discredited data. In fact, I bet you can't even tell me what studies those are.
Genes do determine intelligence, if you think on it hard enough you will see how stupid even trying to deny that fact really is.
The scientific community, is in fact, studying these things as we speak.
For example:
http://www.science-spirit.org/archive_cm_detail.php?new_id=34
and
http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/NN/nyt.html
and
http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-genetic-basis-of-intelligence/

Hell man just google for genetic intelligence.

It would be impossible for intelligence to not be genetic. You don't need a study to understand that. Contemplate that for a while, genius.

For someone talking about intelligence, you sure aren't very good at reading. I said I wanted the raw data from specific studies, not propoganda. Science does not have an agenda (beyond discovery); the books you've listed all have an agenda. Give me peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals. You do know what that is, right?

Nowhere have I denied that genetics play a role in intelligence. The problem is that you think IQ score differences between races is the result of the genetic difference between races, and not how people are raised. The problem is that you insist on thinking you have some innate superiority, despite the complete lack of evidence.

Regardless, here is the bottom line. If you want to be proven correct, then you need to do one of the following:

1. The factors that affect IQ are genetic factors and external factors (environment, culture). You would need to provide several experiments that eliminate all external variables, such that the only difference between IQ test-takers is their genetic differences. If it was found that one race tended to perform better, then you would have reasonable evidence to support your "Race A is naturally smarter" hypothesis. (If you can't eliminate the external factors, then you haven't properly performed the experiment. The study, for instance, showing that non-poor blacks also performed poorly in school did not eliminate the effect of cultural influence on their performance.)

2. The alternative is to directly show which genes affect intelligence, how they affect intelligence, and how such genes are distributed among the races. If each race has a different set of "intelligence genes", then you have some support for your hypothesis. (Not a definitive answer, but at least you wouldn't be making a blind claim.)

Until one of those 2 things are done, anything you have to say is laughably stupid, and without any substantiation.

In closing, I'll remind you that: Until you get an education, you are not qualified to discuss anything involving genetics or the brain. Reading The Bell Curve and the various related, highly-criticized companions to it, is not a substitution for actually learning how the brain or genes work in a neutral, information-based setting. You can bitch and moan as much as you want, but at the end of the day, you would get laughed at by anyone with a background in the fields you somehow think you are knowledgeable in.

Honestly, even some (hopefully most) of the "scientists" you quote would call you an idiot for having such a gross misunderstanding of the brain and intelligence.

For someone talking about intelligence, you sure aren't very good at reading. I said I wanted the raw data from specific studies, not propoganda. Science does not have an agenda (beyond discovery); the books you've listed all have an agenda. Give me peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals. You do know what that is, right?

I could say the same for you. The books I listed are all based on peer reviewed studies, you jackass. That's all they really talk about.


Nowhere have I denied that genetics play a role in intelligence. The problem is that you think IQ score differences between races is the result of the genetic difference between races, and not how people are raised. The problem is that you insist on thinking you have some innate superiority, despite the complete lack of evidence.

But I have, you have just failed to understand it because you haven't read anything about it. The very fact that brain size correlates to intelligence and that brain sizes are different among races shows a ton of genetic differences just by a glance.
If you would read the books I recommended you would understand this.

Regardless, here is the bottom line. If you want to be proven correct, then you need to do one of the following:

I don't need to do anything. Science supports my case, not yours.

1. The factors that affect IQ are genetic factors and external factors (environment, culture). You would need to provide several experiments that eliminate all external variables, such that the only difference between IQ test-takers is their genetic differences. If it was found that one race tended to perform better, then you would have reasonable evidence to support your "Race A is naturally smarter" hypothesis. (If you can't eliminate the external factors, then you haven't properly performed the experiment. The study, for instance, showing that non-poor blacks also performed poorly in school did not eliminate the effect of cultural influence on their performance.)

I believe you should be reading IQ and wealth of nations.


2. The alternative is to directly show which genes affect intelligence, how they affect intelligence, and how such genes are distributed among the races. If each race has a different set of "intelligence genes", then you have some support for your hypothesis. (Not a definitive answer, but at least you wouldn't be making a blind claim.)

You are asking ridiculous things. It's not that I cannot prove what I say it's that showing you "Which genes" means showing you hundreds of them.
How about you do your own damn homework. You can start with brain size, how it correlates to intelligence, how it differs between races, and how there are thousands of genetic variances that determine the differences already discovered.




Until one of those 2 things are done, anything you have to say is laughably stupid, and without any substantiation.

Here is something you can do. Read the books I posted. They are all based on studies, not opinions.

In closing, I'll remind you that: Until you get an education, you are not qualified to discuss anything involving genetics or the brain. Reading The Bell Curve and the various related, highly-criticized companions to it, is not a substitution for actually learning how the brain or genes work in a neutral, information-based setting. You can bitch and moan as much as you want, but at the end of the day, you would get laughed at by anyone with a background in the fields you somehow think you are knowledgeable in.


I doubt you can even define education without having to google it first.
You're a moron you are again attacking a straw man I never once even mentioned the bell curve and many things in life are criticized but 100% correct.
You fail to give recognition to that fact because of your bias and belief in lies.
The other books I posted you are claiming to be false without having reading them which suggests you intentionally only looked for criticism about them rather than actually sought to read them yourself. This is called bias, something you have accused me of and by the way the people who criticize them do exactly what you just did here.

Science has and is proving my points and theories, you have yet to prove one of yours.

is not a substitution for actually learning how the brain or genes work in a neutral, information-based setting.

It would be impossible for brains to develop exactly the same in different parts of the world when two races are separated.
Do you understand this? Do you understand the mutation and branching theory of evolution?

http://books.google.com/books?id=VG85AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA626&lpg=PA626&dq=black+iq+raised+middle+class&source=web&ots=J0mZlFucTi&sig=80Qf8Q3l2GGUIwwqy8DTFJ17pYU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

The race and IQ argument is now over.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VG85AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA626&lpg=PA626&dq=black+iq+raised+middle+class&source=web&ots=J0mZlFucTi&sig=80Qf8Q3l2GGUIwwqy8DTFJ17pYU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

The race and IQ argument is now over.

That's very interesting. Now let Dr. Richard Lynn explain the truth instead of what that book is trying to claim.
http://www.amren.com/ar/1994/03/

Key point:
The results showed that adoption had no beneficial effect whatever on the IQs of the black, inter-racial, or white children. Their average IQs at age 17 were 89 (black), 98 (inter-racial), and 106 (white). Different IQ tests were used from those in the earlier 1976 report, but they were still approximately 10 years out of date. Three points must therefore be added to the average IQ of the group to which the black children are compared — blacks in the northern states.


Interestingly enough, because it falls into a pattern I have been defining in this thread, that book was Authored by two Jewish people and this study was Authored by 3 people 2 of which are Jewish.
Scientific Marxism at it's best.

I don't need to do anything. Science supports my case, not yours.


And yet after repeated requests, the only thing you can provide is books written by people with a political agenda.


You are asking ridiculous things. It's not that I cannot prove what I say it's that showing you "Which genes" means showing you hundreds of them.

Yeah. I guess asking for evidence for a claim is ridiculous, right? I already told you that I have access to journal databases, and any study you want to provide, I will find and read up on. If it's in the context of a book, then it has an agenda, and the information can either be misinterpreted or overinterpreted. If you provide the scientific papers detailing the methodology and results in an objective manner, then that becomes a non-issue. In essence, you're saying "This is true because that racist guy told me." whereas I'm telling you to show me that "This is true because objective scientist told me."

Since I know that you've never read a scientific paper in your life, you need to open up your propoganda books, go to the reference section, and then post the bibliographic information from some relevant studies. The fact that you think a published science journal article is the same as a book like The Bell Curve clearly shows that you just don't get it.

Thanks for once again confirming that you don't have any qualification to discuss anything in this thread.

And yet after repeated requests, the only thing you can provide is books written by people with a political agenda.

And yet after repeated attempts to claim said scientists have agendas you have yet to produce any proof of this.



Yeah. I guess asking for evidence for a claim is ridiculous, right? I already told you that I have access to journal databases, and any study you want to provide, I will find and read up on. If it's in the context of a book, then it has an agenda, and the information can either be misinterpreted or overinterpreted. If you provide the scientific papers detailing the methodology and results in an objective manner, then that becomes a non-issue. In essence, you're saying "This is true because that racist guy told me." whereas I'm telling you to show me that "This is true because objective scientist told me."

Good, if you access then look up studies done by the people in the books above.
The books contain the scientific data and are based off studies. How many times do you need things explained to you? It feels like I have to explain something to you at least 3 times before you get it through your thick nigger skull.

All books contain agendas?! I see your point there, genius. You are beyond stupid.


Since I know that you've never read a scientific paper in your life, you need to open up your propoganda books, go to the reference section, and then post the bibliographic information from some relevant studies. The fact that you think a published science journal article is the same as a book like The Bell Curve clearly shows that you just don't get it.

Thanks for once again confirming that you don't have any qualification to discuss anything in this thread.

Scientific books are actually better than Scientific Journals.
You apparently do not read Journals or Books.
In fact the very idea that the books I posted have critics has kept you from even thinking about reading them.
Pathetic.

Are you saying that the only studies you can reference are found in the books you've recommended?

Are you saying that the only studies you can reference are found in the books you've recommended?

Do I need to get an ebonics interpreter in here to explain what I already explained multiple times so that your feeble nigger mind can grasp it?

Do I need to get an ebonics interpreter in here to explain what I already explained multiple times so that your feeble nigger mind can grasp it?

A "Yes" would have sufficed. It's strange...you're apparently ashamed of simply admitting that you don't have any education, yet you advertise it proudly in every single post.

By the way, I came across an article that summarizes and debunks the bullshit flowing from some of the racist propoganda you value so much. http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=1536

I encourage you to verify it for yourself, since you surely won't believe it.

A "Yes" would have sufficed. It's strange...you're apparently ashamed of simply admitting that you don't have any education, yet you advertise it proudly in every single post.

No, what I said explained it perfectly.
I tried explaining it to you, you didn't listen. I am tired of repeating myself. I am sure more educated breeds of man understand what I said perfectly.
If you were truly wanting the information, and you had access to scientific data, you would easily find all the studies you need by simply looking up the doctors who wrote those books, even though the books cover the studies far more better than the scientific publishing.

By the way, I came across an article that summarizes and debunks the bullshit flowing from some of the racist propoganda you value so much. http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=1536

Yeah I have read it and I do not see anything conclusive.

Yeah I have read it and I do not see anything conclusive.

The issues brought up in that article completely tear apart Rushton's work. Are you saying you don't believe the points brought up, or you somehow don't understand the significance of those points?

The issues brought up in that article completely tear apart Rushton's work. Are you saying you don't believe the points brought up, or you somehow don't understand the significance of those points?

It's nothing more than an opinion.

It's nothing more than an opinion.

It's a set of alleged facts that ruin Rushton's claims. You can dispute the accuracy and veracity of the alleged facts the writer presents, but you can't simply discard them as opinions. Or do you need an explanation of how the presented facts ruin his claims?

It's a set of alleged facts that ruin Rushton's claims. You can dispute the accuracy and veracity of the alleged facts the writer presents, but you can't simply discard them as opinions. Or do you need an explanation of how the presented facts ruin his claims?

If you would read the comments section as well, you would see someone already has to some degree.


Greg:
“He uses a number around 70 for the IQ of “Africans” from Africa, as opposed, say, to African Americans. This number is from a single set of tests given several decades ago in South Africa. The test was invalid. It consisted of a non-written (visual) test developed by Yerkes during World War I for use by the US Army but rejected after a short time because it seemed useless.”

where did you got that? (it likely is a cut and paste from a reply to Rushton written by someone else but I’d like to know the source) Rushton went to South Africa to test black university students with the Raven Progressive Matrices test. First year psychology students had an average of 84

at 9 minutes:

http://www.filecrunch.com/file/~li7vcs

Greg:
“Brain size information is actually estimated, for most of the data, from skull size, but the skull size measure is actually a hat-size measurement taken while conscripts were entering the army, or something similar, not measured with calibrated instruments.”

he has also used Magnetic Resonance Imaging data, not simply army helmet measurements.

Greg:
“the Bell Curves’ incorporation of these bogus data”

you have to back that up. How does the Bell Curve rely on Rushton to assert anything? How many references are there to Rushton’s studies/work in TBC? I don’t have the book but here’s what I found in 30 seconds with Google:

http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REP.....erson.html

quote:
“Dr. Armelagos not only misrepresents the book, but — like Dr. Boli — also asserts that it is a work of moral corruption. He refers to its “reliance” on “patently racist” studies by Lynn and Rushton, without indicating what “reliance” means. On two occasions, The Bell Curve utilizes summaries of data provided by Lynn, but Lynn’s work is hardly the Archimedean point of the book. On one occasion (as I indicated in my original discussion), they consider one of Rushton’s hypotheses and conclude that the evidence supporting it is inconclusive. (Boli, too, continues to say that Murray and Herrnstein have adopted the Rushton hypothesis.)”

looks like you’re speaking through your ass.

Greg:
“But beyond that, politically speaking, there is nothing whatsoever about this “benign” form of racism, if one examines it even briefly (I won’t bother here). It is still racism.”

TLB, typical liberal behavior: your concern about ‘racism’ is clearly way above any concern about scientific discoveries. A honest scientist wouldn’t mind discovering or acknowledging racial differences because he could separate his morality from the reality. But you obviously can’t.

Greg:
“I find it astounding that fellow scientists can ignore the fact that biological anthropologists have been saying that the concept of “races” (”race” or now, fashionably, “demes”) in humans is useless.”

Forensic anthropologists can tell the race of a skeleton by examining the skull, even the racially mixed ones (saw it on the FBI’s website). Unless you think bones are a social construction you simply have to recognize that there are racial differences, whether you like it or not. Medicine is beginning to produce race specific drugs. Can you believe it? those racist researchers are trying to help people of various races. It’s outrageous!

Leave your morals for moral debates, if you can.


Silly noob you waste my time.

Just some comments I would like to post about it are as follows.
First is that he assumes Rushton doesn't understand the old propter hoc logical fallacy. He mentions it here "correlation does not necessarily imply causality"...
It's very true that Correlation does not necessarily imply causality but he doesn't point out that "necessarily imply" are words specifically chosen for a reason.
Why? Because it often does work to help prove causality.

Then his statement about the Twins being so identical (btw not all of them were raised together as he says some of them were not and the results were just the same) because of environment is completely unfounded speculation. What is he basing this opinion off of? He doesn't even tell you that much because he is simply stirring shit rather than having any facts.

Then my favorite is his explanation of brain sizes. He is correct and his comments mostly come from the book I mentioned earlier "The mismeasure of man".
As the fine gentlemen I quoted above points out however, MRI scans of the brain have proven people like this Laden guy are full of shit. He also mentions the thickness of negro skulls and implies that is unfair. We discussed this issue earlier as well and the book and person behind this original claim who falsified his data, now we deal with their idiot pupils.
Doesn't matter as MRI is god.

As the other guy pointed out he did point out some of the lies Laden told as well about Rushtons methods. Rushton himself has also addressed many of his critics online but I think Rushtons site is down I can't find it anymore.

While you continued to take a bath in your ignorance, I sought out the actual report from Rushton's study.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Rushton1992.pdf
(Notice that it's quite a bit different than what you find in your propoganda books.)

First of all, MRI was not a part of Rushton's study, but rather a study done the year before by Willerman et al looking for a correlation for brain size and IQ scores in a sample of men and women (IQs lower than 103 or above 130). Men have a correlation of about .5 and women of about .33. MRI is indeed "god", and it shows that there's only a weak to moderate correlation between brain size and one's performance on an IQ test.

Apparently some genius skimmed the report, saw "MRI" and didn't bother to actually see what the MRI study found.

The blogger was incorrect about the "hat size" comment, as Rushton used data from the ARP made using calipers. He may have been referring to an earlier study of Rushton's. However, he is indeed correct about Rushton's inappropriate consideration of skull thickness. I quote: "Although Lee and Pearson repeatedly emphasized the need for caution, the amount of error involved, and the difficulties of generalizing from one local race to another...their panracial equation provided estimates of cranial capacity more accurate than the direct method of measuring endocranial volume using sand, seed, or shot."

How the external estimations could me more accurate than directly filling the brain is beyond me, but that's beside the point here: What does Rushton proceed to do? He generalizes the 90-year-old equation for use with African-American military personnel who identify themselves as "black".

Kamin and Omari also point out that blacks on average have large head circumference, and using Lee and Pearson's circumferential panracial equations, blacks generally have the advantage.

The point:
1) Rushton's estimates of brain volume are highly unreliable.
2) Even if they were 100% accurate, godly MRI shows that there is not a strong correlation between brain volume and IQ.

I stand corrected: Rushton did subsequently do an MRI study, which I am reading now.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Brain%20Size%20and%20Cognitive%20Ability.pdf

EDIT: Their MRI study confirmed what was found in Willerman et al's and other studies. The correlation ranged from .33 to .69, with an average correlation of .44, which Rushton himself acknowledges is not a strong correlation.

Rushton also mentions a study done by Harvey et al. in 1994, in which the brain volumes of 108 white, African, and West Indian subjects were found with MRI. However, "Harvey et al. (1994) provided little information on ethnicity and no details on how, or if, the samples were matched for age, sex, or body size." Go figure.

I must admit, I'm impressed that Rushton does seem to be trying to follow the scientific method. It's clear that he is a racist simply attempting to find proof for his beliefs, and he definitely has serious methodological and interpretational mistakes, but he's not really the COMPLETE buffoon that the blogger made him out to be.

While you continued to take a bath in your ignorance, I sought out the actual report from Rushton's study.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Rushton1992.pdf
(Notice that it's quite a bit different than what you find in your propoganda books.)

First of all, MRI was not a part of Rushton's study, but rather a study done the year before by Willerman et al looking for a correlation for brain size and IQ scores in a sample of men and women (IQs lower than 103 or above 130). Men have a correlation of about .5 and women of about .33. MRI is indeed "god", and it shows that there's only a weak to moderate correlation between brain size and one's performance on an IQ test.

Apparently some genius skimmed the report, saw "MRI" and didn't bother to actually see what the MRI study found.

The blogger was incorrect about the "hat size" comment, as Rushton used data from the ARP made using calipers. He may have been referring to an earlier study of Rushton's. However, he is indeed correct about Rushton's inappropriate consideration of skull thickness. I quote: "Although Lee and Pearson repeatedly emphasized the need for caution, the amount of error involved, and the difficulties of generalizing from one local race to another...their panracial equation provided estimates of cranial capacity more accurate than the direct method of measuring endocranial volume using sand, seed, or shot."

How the external estimations could me more accurate than directly filling the brain is beyond me, but that's beside the point here: What does Rushton proceed to do? He generalizes the 90-year-old equation for use with African-American military personnel who identify themselves as "black".

Kamin and Omari also point out that blacks on average have large head circumference, and using Lee and Pearson's circumferential panracial equations, blacks generally have the advantage.

The point:
1) Rushton's estimates of brain volume are highly unreliable.
2) Even if they were 100% accurate, godly MRI shows that there is not a strong correlation between brain volume and IQ.

There actually wasn't really a point. It was a scatter shot attack against Rushton with no real valid points.
I understand the that G. Laden is not discussing just one of Rusthon's studies. His actual study about Penis Size turns out to be not far off the mark according to a news story posted in News of the World or "IFOTW" I forget which. Not completely accurate either I felt that Rushton shouldn't have published that study but damned if he wasn't possibly on to something.

What I know about the skull measurements was Rushton was actually taking a jab at The Mismeasure of Man which was, as Rushton explains it, a book full of Straw Men and one giant Ad Hominem attack.


1. Read this. One of the books I recommended and about this particular book you're correct in your agenda statement I will give you that.
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf
2. Volume huh......

And just as an after thought much of science builds off of the studies of others. You can't knock anyone for that.
Another after thought, It's probably worth mentioning I am not really the biggest fan of Rushton either.

And since you actually showed some initiative in actually reading something then check it out.
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/JPRvitae.htm
His studies, when they are available, can be found here.

IQ sucks ass. Autistic people (mainly "lower functioning") get the stigma of being 'retarded'. The IQ test is bullshit perpetuated by neurotypicals
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=28489

IQ sucks ass. Autistic people (mainly "lower functioning") get the stigma of being 'retarded'. The IQ test is bullshit perpetuated by neurotypicals
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=28489

So you're brilliant idea is to try prove one mental functions test wrong by using another mental functions test? Genius.

Call me crazy but the fact that autism is caused by having a fucked up brain tends to give people the impression that autism is to blame rather than the IQ tests.

Oh, btw, both tests in your article are actually IQ tests.

A little tidbit that slipped my mind:

The Black/White (and White/Asian) gap can be erased by controlling for "stereotype threat" (the fear of confirming a negative stereotype that subsequently hurts cognitive abilities while test-taking). In terms of experimental variables, this includes the ethnicity of the experimenter, the purported purpose of the test (ie. intelligence test versus a generalized test), and the knowledge of a future comparison with another group.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.10.13.html (look for the page headers for pages 192 through 194)

This article provides a summary, though particular attention should be paid to Steele and Aronson's 1995 experiment, which you can find more about on google.

A little tidbit that slipped my mind:

The Black/White (and White/Asian) gap can be erased by controlling for "stereotype threat" (the fear of confirming a negative stereotype that subsequently hurts cognitive abilities while test-taking). In terms of experimental variables, this includes the ethnicity of the experimenter, the purported purpose of the test (ie. intelligence test versus a generalized test), and the knowledge of a future comparison with another group.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.10.13.html (look for the page headers for pages 192 through 194)

This article provides a summary, though particular attention should be paid to Steele and Aronson's 1995 experiment, which you can find more about on google.

I'll read it since you read some of mine although I did mention already that I agree that external factors can have a biological influence. Right now I am reading an evil racist propaganda book called A Distant Thunder and then I gotta go cook up some baby Jews for supper so I have energy for all the lynchings we got to get done tonight.

There is no such thing as a good intelligence test because intelligence hasn't been properly defined yet. How can we measure intelligence if psychologists everywhere disagree on it's definition?

IQ tests don't test objective intelligence, they test knowledge of the cultural perception of intelligence. You can learn intelligence tests and become good at them. A true intelligence test would give the same results to a person no matter how many times he or she would do it.

They are highly discriminatory and jugements based on the results of an intelligence test should be avoided at all costs.

There is no such thing as a good intelligence test because intelligence hasn't been properly defined yet. How can we measure intelligence if psychologists everywhere disagree on it's definition?

My 1969 psychology book said, "Intelligence is what intelligence tests measure."

Psychologists can talk circular logic with the best of them.

Dumb ass psychologists. LOL

DT

So you're brilliant idea is to try prove one mental functions test wrong by using another mental functions test? Genius.

yes, given it is more fitting with the autistic mindset, raher than neurotypicals forcing their stuff on neurodiverse people.

Call me crazy but the fact that autism is caused by having a fucked up brain tends to give people the impression that autism is to blame rather than the IQ tests.

it's a neurological condition. Lol @ 'fucked up brain'

Oh, btw, both tests in your article are actually IQ tests.

yeah...that still points out how those tests tend to suck because it's designed for certain people...

yes, given it is more fitting with the autistic mindset, raher than neurotypicals forcing their stuff on neurodiverse people.

Ok.



it's a neurological condition. Lol @ 'fucked up brain'

Yes lets all be pc about it. A neurological condition caused by fucked up brain functions & actually physically fucked up brains. That's what causes it. It can be caused by a car accident.



yeah...that still points out how those tests tend to suck because it's designed for certain people...

Actually it doesn't prove anything other than autistic children needing different tests because they have problems communicating like normal children because of their fucked up brains.