Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One not need look to Africa as to the impact of lower intelligence on society as a whole.
The African continent (and Middle East region) is the poster boy for dysfunctional but there’s plenty of poor/corrupt Eastern European countries and 3rd world Spanish countries.
Every “race” pretty much has its “bad country.”
Back on topic. Is IQ genetic? Ofcourse it is. Obama and Ben Carson have much higher IQs than the humbled places they come from. Luckily, we live in a country where even if you don’t have the IQ of a lawyer or neurosurgeon, you can still live a successful productive life.
The issue is when people put “race” into it. The color of your skin won’t decide if you get locked behind bars for commiting a crime or you get 6 figures for being a computer scientist. It’s the IQ in your brain that will largely decide that.
IQ tests are not some benchmark for science. I think Watson and many others think that the science for testing intelligence is more scientifically valid than it is. IQ tests measure intelligence by testing skills. Different cultures emphasize different skills, and that's why IQ tests tend to have cultural biases. While heredity plays a role, and nurture plays a role, and environmental influences play a role, and personality plays a role, the fact is that intelligence expresses itself in a variety of ways, and IQ tests simply don't measure all those ways.
I think more investigation should be done but we've deemed it evil. That's our error. We are obsessed with identifying and labeling every single social difference between people yet we aren't willing to take a look at something that could possible be the root of many problems, problems we can't hope to solve if we don't know about them. It really doesn't take an expert to around and wonder wth is going on in some parts of the world.
Science hasn't positively identified genes that are responsible for variances in human intelligence (at least as far as I'm aware), but the going belief is that it's partially environmental and partially genetic based on various studies.
I don't recall Watson ever offering proof to his assertions about race and intelligence outside of bantering stuff along the lines of "have you every worked with Blacks?" It could turn out that there are significant genetic variances in intelligence among geographically disparate populations and maybe even genetic hierarchies of sort based on class within "populations", but it would be a tad presumptive to conclude as such without having a more complete picture.
If/when the genes that are responsible for variances in human intelligence are ever identified, I'm pretty sure they are going to develop techniques that will identify these genes and probably a whole host of other desirable genes in embryos developed via IVF. It may sound far fetched, but "natural selection" as we understand it may no longer play a role in human evolution by the middle of this century. Heck by the end of the century, humans may cease being biological beings all together.
The term "benchmark for science" is what we would deem to be science-ese. It sounds like it makes sense, but in reality its utter nonsense. Thus, any point that you are attempting to make using it is likely to be nonsense.
Quote:
I think Watson and many others think that the science for testing intelligence is more scientifically valid than it is.
This is the point that you are trying to make in a single short paragraph? Good luck. IQ testing is perfectly valid. To state that it isn't only identifies you as not knowing how simple standardized testing works, along with outcome studies (which are extremely simple, and account for external variables outside of intelligence). And that testing science and its proven outcome studies, as related to IQ testing, doesn't even touch IQ science. In other words, you'd have to refute testing science as a broader discipline (which is used across many disciples for decades), and the scientific method itself to begin to challenge IQ testing validity. And then you'd still have the hurdle of challenging IQ science itself. As your kind fails to ever properly grasp, you will have no success in this from simply quoting apoplectic twitter SJW's and politically interested NYT journalists.
Quote:
IQ tests measure intelligence by testing skills.
No it doesn't.
Quote:
Different cultures emphasize different skills, and that's why IQ tests tend to have cultural biases.
What a tired line, which has been refuted an infinitum. So called cultural biases can be and have been more than well controlled for in studies. This has even a constant complaint from non-scientists. Did you think that it wouldn't be controlled for? Have you taken an IQ test? Valid tests exist for simple pattern recognition, which virtually no one has any cultural bias for nor can they practice for it. The studies come out the same. Moreover, the studies come out the same across different groups that have been brought up in a broader culture that eradicates any possible significant cultural variable. You are merely repeating well-defeated objections in the hope that you will be the last one to speak. Yawn.
Quote:
While heredity plays a role, and nurture plays a role, and environmental influences play a role, and personality plays a role, the fact is that intelligence expresses itself in a variety of ways, and IQ tests simply don't measure all those ways.
That sounds like the poem of someone with barely more than a high school education (g: no science education to speak of). Its more science-ese, but this time worse than the last.
What IQ tests do measure is the type of intelligence that is scientifically correlated to most of the outcomes that matter for the individual and society. Again, see my prior explanation about those correlated outcomes.
Poor guy. We are turning into a society who's sole mission seems to be to destroy the reputations of everyone who ever contributed anything to society because they aren't Jesus level perfect. Jesus wouldn't pass either.
Lazy inner-city people? No, Charles Murray didn't write that. When you quote something from a book which is not actually in that book you are... lying. Quit lying.
He has now lied 3 times and made 2 assumptions to make the point he is making. Perhaps his point is hollow and completely in his head since he leaves the land of the real.
In other words 100 more factors are more important than 20-30 points differences in IQ scores. That’s why we don’t measure it for College entrance, or medical school entrance, or for any occupation really.
You are too idealistic to a fault.
A 30 IQ point differential is significant. A person with a 70 IQ will not likely make much of anything on their own compared to someone with a 100 IQ. If you have an IQ of 70 you potentially qualify for Social Security Disability due to your low IQ test score, because it is a sign that you can't adapt to society well due to the lack of intelligence to function properly in a job setting.
There is also a strong correlation between IQ test scores and scores on the ACT/SAT/LSAT, etc.... I know that MENSA use to accept SAT scores as admission. There is also a correlation between ACT/SAT/LSAT/etc score and whether or not you complete college, which is why it is silly for colleges to be PC and ignore the scores. I guess who cares if more and more kids rack up lots of college debt and then drop out.....
You mean well, but you simply don't know what you are talking about. Yes a hard work ethic goes a long ways, etc...but you are way off on reality.
The issue is when people put “race” into it. The color of your skin won’t decide if you get locked behind bars for commiting a crime or you get 6 figures for being a computer scientist. It’s the IQ in your brain that will largely decide that.
Well, that's another story.....in the South, for generations, virtually ALL the crime was committed by a single race and 100% of the people who "decided it was crime" were another race. Coincidentally, the people who decided what was a crime or not would take some land in trade for lenient treatment.
High IQ, right? or low morals?
A comment of the wrong type (or suggestion of such) or joining the NAACP resulted in a death sentence....without a trial usually, and at the hands of those same LE pillars of the community.
History, like health care, is complicated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.