Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
Quote:
Quote:
Fred and I ought to take identical IQ tests. Well, maybe identical except his ought to be translated into a language spoken by few people and then translated back into 'english'. Not fair? |
Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
Quote:
I’d guess that your/my IQs are within a 5% range—believe it or not, you could be 5% higher on the curve, or maybe lower. But from what I’ve seen in many of your half-assed posts, I’d say I’m using mine more effectively than you’re using yours, so far anyway . . . and you seem to have other issues. JimB suggested Murray’s Human Accomplishment—do yourself a favor and read it. Expand your mind Tom . . . or take the blue pill and believe whatever you want to believe. Anyway, if things are as deterministic as you suggest (and I think that they more or less are except for some amount of human free will), then there’s really nothing you can do to change them. BTW Tom, I’m betting that even Pinker’s charm and big beautiful hair will not overcome Margaret’s ideology—that she’ll never accept or acknowledge, in any meaningful way, the reality of general intelligence differences. What do you think? (I fear that she doesn’t even acknowledge me anymore . . . and I’ve tried so hard to help her . . . oh well.) |
Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
I hope it is appreciated that to write off arguments because of the person rather than taking the arguments at their merit is what is known as an ad homenim attack.
Yeah I followed the link back to the main page too and some of the other arguments are a riot! But that being said... If you have a problem with the arguments you should address the arguments not attack the person (ie those 'raving liberals' Margaret... If you are still interested in emotions you might want to check this out: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019...lance&n=283155 Prinz engages with the most recent findings from the Cognitive Neuro-Sciences and he tries to extend the James-Lange / Le Doux theory of emotions (as perceptions of body state / perceptions of brain areas active when typically experiencing a body state) line. He also has a place for typical causes, appraisals (ie of danger), and action tendencies. He also engages in a fairly sophisticated analysis of the experimental findings and he considers an interesting analogy between emotions and perceptions. So for instance one can imagine oneself into an emotion one can also imagine a visual perception and both seem to involve the parts of the brain relevant to bottom-up (stimulus driven) visual perception and emotional response. He talks a bit about the function of emotions too. He thinks emotions are perceptions of body / brain changes and that those states represent relational properties that matter for the organism (ie danger). A very interesting read. Re intelligence... Nobody seems to have mentioned poverty again... And how poverty (and lack of education) can significantly impact on ones score. Do people mean to dispute the claims regarding how opression of group seems to have a more significant impact on IQ than ethnic groups? Do people mean to dispute the claims regarding remedial programs and increase in IQ? Are people going to argue for those or are they just going to write off the links as words from the 'raving liberals'? Also would be interesting to consider the role of self-fulfilling prophecy. If people are told they are smart they will do better than if they are told they are stupid. Experiments have found that teachers treat their students very differently depending on whether they are told they are 'smart' or 'stupid'. Sigh. Back to the nature / nurture debate again... Things just aren't that simple. If you really are interested I'd suggest Fiona Cowie "What's Within? Nativism Reconsidered" and also Paul Griffiths book on emotions... Title escapes me... Both are empirically informed but even better they engage in sophisticated analysis of the empirical information... Something that seems to be lacking from people who are taught facts without being taught how to think. Sigh. |
Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
Quote:
The “write-off†of such “arguments†is not so much “ad hominem,†but rather well deserved contempt. Wake up and smell your own narrow-minded ideological bullshit. |
Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
Quote:
Regardless, if there were a set of identical twins where one was well-fed, educated and had a complicated environment and the other was none of those, do you think they would score the same on an IQ test? Use that wonderful mind of yours and think about it. I'll be expecting an answer ;). There's a difference between stupidity and ignorance. And it's hard to measure the former if there's too much of the latter. |
Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
Quote:
|
Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
Quote:
|
Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
Tom, Some quick points.
* I am a liberal and I accept a genetic effect on cognitive abilty. I keep saying that but no-one listens. * That 'statistical adjustment' for environment you refer to is the environmental effect on cognitive abilty. * Cognitive ability has both genetic and environmental factors. IQ tests (so far) can not separate those for any individual. However, statistical methods and science has examined that question in terms of populations. The best estimates of those attempts so far attribute about a 50/50 contribution by genes and environment - although that could vary in any individual. Even hereditarians agree on this. * That does not address the question of just what IQ is. I believe that a person's actual cognitive ability (both the innate and environmental components) is a complex variable that could not be expressed as a single number. IQ can be useful as a simple proxy for the complex concept of cognitive ability as long as people remember that - but they won't, of course. * Even among the hereditarians there are three versions of the inherited IQ theory. The different brain structure model, the different information processing model, and the different intelligences model. The reality (for inherited cognitive ability) could well be some combination of those but all three are themelves plausibly subject to environmental effects during development. * I accept that IQ predicts some forms of accomplishment. Like Binet I believe that IQ can be a useful tool to help identify children who may need special attention in school. * Binet warned against and predicted that conservatives would sieze upon IQ as a way to justify unequal treatment of minorities. How right he was. * If hereditarians agree that cognitive ability is a mix of inherited and environmental factors - and that Ashkinazim Jews can increase their IQ substantially in just a few generations - then why are they not demanding better environmental conditions for groups who test low on the IQ scale in order to eventually raise those scores and eliminate that drain on society for our descendents in future generations - instead of setting up special communities to house them. Margaret |
Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
Quote:
Once again Margaret, here’s the science from Wikipedia: Quote:
I’d say you’re missing consistency and intellectual honesty. And perhaps you’re also blinded by your hatred for “conservativesâ€â€”if so, I’d suggest you get over it—anyway, those evil “conservatives†will almost certainly outbreed the “liberals.†|
Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
Wow, Margaret, great post! It has my vote for post of the year.
My only response is that I don't know that anyone defends: Quote:
Just looking for possible mechanisms... |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 1995-2023 Liviant Internet LLC. All rights reserved.