^ IQ tests are even more prone to faults than the SAT, especially when youre trying to compare different cultures.

10/15/2009 12:14:38 PM

Proof?

10/15/2009 12:23:33 PM

Quote :

"^^^ it doesn't even do that. It indicates how good the quality of your education was, and not much more."

this is essentially the same thing i what i said, so don't know why you're trying to disagree with it.

when i said education attained i didn't say or mean what grade you are in. someone can be in 12th grade but only have a 7th grade reading level. as such the SAT measures what level of education you are at mentally which, yes, is often times correlated with the quality of the education you have received both in and out of school.

also i need to see some facts of how IQ tests are more biased, because to me those spacial analysis questions and numerical patterns are pretty unbiased

10/15/2009 1:42:40 PM

But how good someone's education is depends on their genetics in addition to their social factors. The only thing you should be looking to eliminate is a difference in access to education. If two people both start out, square one, with the same footing, then the fact that one of them did poorly on an IQ test b/c he/she never paid attention in class, then that should be taken as an indicator that that he/she is less intelligent (dumber).

Learning takes cognitive ability too. We shouldn't be judging everything based on some idea of 'reasoning power' which is divorced from knowledge. Instead, we should target areas to test intelligence in which one individual does not have an unfair advantage by an ability to accumulate more knowledge than the other person in advance. English is not such an area and should be tested as a measure of intelligence.

[Edited on October 16, 2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ]

10/16/2009 11:36:13 AM

Quote :

"If two people both start out, square one, with the same footing, then the fact that one of them did poorly on an IQ test b/c he/she never paid attention in class, then that should be taken as an indicator that that he/she is less intelligent (dumber)."

That's actually the opposite of what we should do.

For one thing, if you're talking about an IQ test... what someone may or may not have learned in a class is absolutely irrelevant. As ^^ mentioned, it largely tests spatial analysis and pattern recognition. Unless you're thinking that someone didn't pay enough attention in first grade math and thus can't understand the basic addition used in some of the numerical patterns...

Whether or not someone pays attention in class IS completely divorced from intelligence, assuming one defines intelligence as an inherent ability/potential to think and to learn. Lack of effort does not imply lack of ability, and it's rather absurd that you're trying to say it does. Seriously, this sort of shit is on the level of people who say that letter grades in school are a metric of intelligence.


Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant to say "SAT" or some other standardized test, rather than "an IQ test". If this was the case, your first mistake is in thinking that such standardized testing should be attempting to measure intelligence at all. As has been mentioned, they exist to gauge knowledge and how much one has learned in classes, and are used by most colleges in that manner. Then again, you'd still be under the impression that paying attention in class is a direct result of (or at least has some sort of causal relationship with) being more intelligent... in which case, you're still basically wrong.

Quote :

"We shouldn't be judging everything based on some idea of 'reasoning power' which is divorced from knowledge."

Yes we should. The failure to divorce those two things is what causes a lot of debates in the first place. From what I can see, there was much confusion on the first page of this thread due to just that failure. Intentionally choosing not to separate these two things is a step directly backwards in any discussion of the subject.

Quote :

"English is not such an area and should be tested as a measure of intelligence."

...What? Basic English is heavily knowledge-based, especially since many grammatical rules don't actually make intuitive sense when one's goal is achieving a natural flow of readability. (example: no comma in front of "because", no comma in front of "and" when the second half is not a complete sentence... why the fuck not? With regards to speaking, a comma indicates a brief pause, and most people damn sure insert a small pause before saying "because" and "and", regardless of what comes after. There's no reason such a pause shouldn't also be inserted in writing, besides the arbitrary desire of whoever determines written grammatical standards.)

Though I can see where you're coming from if you mean the really basic basic English.... being given a sentence and answering "circle the subject/noun" and "underline the predicate/verb". Unless someone had simply ignored the definitions of noun and verb, or didn't know the meaning of some words in the sentence they were given, such a test could be said to be reasonably intellect-based, I suppose.

[Edited on October 16, 2009 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2009 4:06:28 PM

^

Quote :

"Though I can see where you're coming from if you mean the really basic basic English.... being given a sentence and answering "circle the subject/noun" and "underline the predicate/verb". Unless someone had simply ignored the definitions of noun and verb, or didn't know the meaning of some words in the sentence they were given, such a test could be said to be reasonably intellect-based, I suppose."

I don't think even that would be a good measure of intellect. A better test would provide the definitions of verbs and nouns and adverbs and then have you identify them in a sentence. IQ tests shouldn't test accumulated knowledge, but rather, your ability to accumulate knowledge

10/16/2009 4:42:31 PM

^I agree completely.
I just called it "reasonably intellect-based", compared to using other aspects from the subject of English. As a measure of intellect, it would be unreliable at best.

[Edited on October 16, 2009 at 4:49 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2009 4:48:27 PM

A)Is accumulated knowledge not evidence of the ability to accumulate knowledge?
B)Would not providing definitions of verbs, nouns, and adverbs be accumulated knowledge? Would this not also be prone to the same racist arguments that analogies have? (poor people wouldn't know what a regatta is).

10/16/2009 5:12:45 PM

I do not see why it is so far fetched or considered racist to consider the possibility that the normal distribution of certain races may be shifted to the right when it comes to attributes like intelligence. Different evolutionary pressures may easily have played a factor in say making North East asians better at technical or logical reasoning skills that perhaps were not necessary for survival in sub-saharan Africa.

Would anyone argue that black athletes do not tend to be faster or jump higher than their white companions On Average.

10/16/2009 5:39:20 PM

Quote :

"A)Is accumulated knowledge not evidence of the ability to accumulate knowledge?"

When talking about paying attention in class, and such, accumulated knowledge is evidence of the ability to accumulate knowledge combined with effort applied in accumulating that knowledge (ie. paying attention or attending class).

You could conclude that person A is intelligent based on their demonstration of accumulated knowledge, but it would be unfair to conclude that person B is unintelligent based on their failure to demonstrate accumulated knowledge.

Quote :

"B)Would not providing definitions of verbs, nouns, and adverbs be accumulated knowledge?"

I read his post as saying that the test itself would be the one providing that knowledge... in other words, test-takers would read "this is what an adverbs is: ..." and such, before ever answering problems based on those definitions.

It can reasonably assumed that if a person is taking an intelligence test in the first place that they'll be paying attention to the material in it... and I would expect it to be generally easy to tell when someone doesn't (randomly marked down answers, circling "C" on every question, ect...) and just put such outliers off to the side during statistical analysis. I could be quite wrong about that last sentence, though... I don't know because I've never had to grade the papers of students who obviously did not put forth effort on a test.

[Edited on October 16, 2009 at 5:41 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2009 5:40:52 PM

Quote :

"Would anyone argue that black athletes do not tend to be faster or jump higher than their white companions On Average."

I think I can make this argument.

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/prevalence.html





Fat kids don't jump as far.

10/16/2009 6:28:31 PM

^ If you are looking at the first graph (boys) the difference is negligible between whites and blacks.

If you are looking at the 2nd graph, that one also bolsters a well known fact: that black girls are on average heavier/bigger/fatter than white girls.

Anyway, blacks males on average have a higher percentage of muscle mass, as well as a higher percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers (sprinting, boxing, etc) than white males. This is documented.

Quote :

"Would anyone argue that black athletes do not tend to be faster or jump higher than their white companions On Average."

That's OK to say in today's world (maybe not in the future!), but to say anything about possible differences in intelligence/mental abilities within races, is just plain and simple racism in today's world.


[Edited on October 16, 2009 at 7:06 PM. Reason : ]

10/16/2009 7:04:08 PM

but fat black girls can bring down their average, right? And just b/c the most fit of the fit of blacks jump further doesn't mean that they all do. Genetic factors are probably helping them by pushing up their average slightly, I completely agree with that.

10/16/2009 7:08:47 PM

Quote :

"doesn't mean that they all do."

Neither HUR said that, nor did I. "On average".

And I don't get your 1st sentence. This (being more muscular on average than whites) isn't about black girls, but black boys.

10/16/2009 7:15:42 PM

some of the posts in this site amaze me. ya know, I came on here with the idea that the county, for the most part, was pretty reasonable and idiots were rare. After staying on this site for a few months it scares me that everyone here is a potential parent. back to the topic...

Quote :

"IQ tests shouldn't test accumulated knowledge, but rather, your ability to accumulate knowledge "

That would be memory. memory and intelligence are not the same thing. high school is largely memorization and so is vocabulary.

Quote :

"people damn sure insert a small pause before saying "because" and "and", regardless of what comes after"

so if somebody pauses in a situation most people wouldn't or vice versa, that makes them less intelligent? intelligence is now talking like most people talk? wow

Quote :

"I do not see why it is so far fetched or considered racist to consider the possibility that the normal distribution of certain races may be shifted to the right when it comes to attributes like intelligence. Different evolutionary pressures may easily have played a factor in say making North East asians better at technical or logical reasoning skills that perhaps were not necessary for survival in sub-saharan Africa. "

Anyone with a decent grasp of genetics knows that brain matter, knowledge etc is not hereditary. They would also know that races are physical differences caused by variation of environment and the brain is not physically altered by the environment. This mythical nazi-science has been dubunked over and over again but there will always be people who want to think their race is "supreme" I guess.

Quote :

"Would anyone argue that black athletes do not tend to be faster or jump higher than their white companions On Average. "

So is that what this is about? they're better at something so we HAVE to have something we're better at?

Slavery made the muscular system of blacks adapt to lives of labor with stronger muscles but no parts of the human body have ever "changed". Just like many whites who worked. Every race has all the same exact anatomy and physiology. If you don't already understand the difference between things like pigment, muscle tone, and height vs the way the brain functions then you are completely lost.

Quote :

"That's OK to say in today's world (maybe not in the future!), but to say anything about possible differences in intelligence/mental abilities within races, is just plain and simple racism in today's world."

Its racist because even if the nazis were correct, what would be the purpose of this research? We already know it wouldn't mean everyone in race x is smarter than everyone in race y so any use of this would be discrimination. The idea that you are even THINKING about the question "is race x smarter than race y is already racism. Why are you dwelling on the differences between races.

We need to move to a world where race is completley ignored.

Quote :

"that black girls are on average heavier/bigger/fatter than white girls. "

cultural difference

Quote :

"Neither HUR said that, nor did I. "On average". "

So whats the point? If I go pick oranges from the same acre of trees and divide them randomly into two sets, the average of the two will NEVER be the same even though all of the oranges are, for all intents and purposes, the same.

Quote :

"Place all these children with families assigned randomly. Enroll all in upper-middle class schools. 30 years later, measure IQ scores. "

You are placing al the children with different families. The results will reflect the families as much as the children. Also the emotional factors on children who are with parents of a different race them them and then the big one... dealing with racism.

The main problem with this whole topic, is that all people are different. You are no more similar to a person of your race than a person of another race. Every human is unique so any type of grouping is logically flawed to begin with.

10/16/2009 7:52:47 PM

That may be one of the longest troll posts ever made.

Assuming of course that mambagrl is just a troll and not a dangerously stupid person. Either way, it's not worth responding to. Just ignore ^ and move on, everybody.

10/16/2009 8:14:36 PM

The only thing stupid about me is that I'm acutally on here arguing about such a stupid theory and spent the time and thought to put points together against such ignorance.

10/16/2009 8:23:22 PM

Her post was actually one of the only ones worth a damn in this entire thread

But seriously, don't waste your time here like I do

10/16/2009 8:56:07 PM