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.
Because measuring intelligence is tricky and far too nuanced to be determine by a simple test.
Simple tests, complex tests, specific tests, related tests... there is an entire scientific discipline dedicated to measuring intelligence which exists despite all efforts by liberals to handwave it away.
Quote:
The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence
1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.
3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).
Simple tests, complex tests, specific tests, related tests... there is an entire scientific discipline dedicated to measuring intelligence which exists despite all efforts by liberals to handwave it away.
Just because scientist study IQ tests doesn't mean they are a useful form of measurement. For one, scientist can't agree on what exactly IQ tests actually measure. Also in order for the tests to be of any actual use the test takers need to actually want to score well on the test. A highly intelligent individual can take the test casually and receive a score that is not accurate in relation to their actual intelligence. Richard Feynman famously got a 125 on his high school IQ test, which is pretty good but not earth shattering. Wouldn't be of importance except that Feynman would become one of he most important physicists of the 20th century. He was definitely much more intelligent then his IQ score would demonstrate.
He is an excerpt related to Feyman's IQ test
Feynman was universally regarded as one of the fastest thinking and most creative theorists in his generation. Yet it has been reported-including by Feynman himself-that he only obtained a score of 125 on a school IQ test. I suspect that this test emphasized verbal, as opposed to mathematical, ability. Feynman received the highest score in the country by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam, although he joined the MIT team on short notice and did not prepare for the test. He also reportedly had the highest scores on record on the math/physics graduate admission exams at Princeton. It seems quite possible to me that Feynman's cognitive abilities might have been a bit lopsided-his vocabulary and verbal ability were well above average, but perhaps not as great as his mathematical abilities. I recall looking at excerpts from a notebook Feynman kept while an undergraduate. While the notes covered very advanced topics for an undergraduate-including general relativity and the Dirac equation-it also contained a number of misspellings and grammatical errors. I doubt Feynman cared very much about such things.
IQ tests are not a useful measurement of intelligence.
Because measuring intelligence is tricky and far too nuanced to be determine by a simple test.
Yet every single test, metric, or standard ever used has always placed the races in the same ranking. Please link me to any inteligence test ever that has blacks out performing whites.
Europeans did eventually catch up, it only took them 5,000 years to do so. Again if "white" Europeans are genetically smarter then non-whites why were they so late to civilization? And when they did develop their own civilization it was built on the culture and technology of older non-white civilizations.
I would just like to repeat one of my first questions: if geography determined the European trajectory, why did it take so long for Europe to pull away from the rest? Why wasn't Europe dominant after the glaciers receded?
Geography could not matter as much as people claim it does, or there could be some other reason why Europe did not become dominant for thousands of years. I think both are true to an extent, and answering why European dominance came later could also address your points about Europe taking so long to catch up.
Just because scientist study IQ tests doesn't mean they are a useful form of measurement.
Scientists study human intelligence, IQ tests are a tool to do that, yes they are accurate and useful in making predictions which is the fundamental standard.
Just because scientist study IQ tests doesn't mean they are a useful form of measurement. For one, scientist can't agree on what exactly IQ tests actually measure. Also in order for the tests to be of any actual use the test takers need to actually want to score well on the test. A highly intelligent individual can take the test casually and receive a score that is not accurate in relation to their actual intelligence. Richard Feynman famously got a 125 on his high school IQ test, which is pretty good but not earth shattering. Wouldn't be of importance except that Feynman would become one of he most important physicists of the 20th century. He was definitely much more intelligent then his IQ score would demonstrate.
He is an excerpt related to Feyman's IQ test
Feynman was universally regarded as one of the fastest thinking and most creative theorists in his generation. Yet it has been reported-including by Feynman himself-that he only obtained a score of 125 on a school IQ test. I suspect that this test emphasized verbal, as opposed to mathematical, ability. Feynman received the highest score in the country by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam, although he joined the MIT team on short notice and did not prepare for the test. He also reportedly had the highest scores on record on the math/physics graduate admission exams at Princeton. It seems quite possible to me that Feynman's cognitive abilities might have been a bit lopsided-his vocabulary and verbal ability were well above average, but perhaps not as great as his mathematical abilities. I recall looking at excerpts from a notebook Feynman kept while an undergraduate. While the notes covered very advanced topics for an undergraduate-including general relativity and the Dirac equation-it also contained a number of misspellings and grammatical errors. I doubt Feynman cared very much about such things.
IQ tests are not a useful measurement of intelligence.
So... because one guy, Feynman, scored as merely smart on one IQ test in high school, and not as the super-genius he turned out to be, you reason that IQ tests are of no use in measuring intelligence? Are you serious with this?
If you consider IQ to be a reliable measure of "g" or cognitive ability, then it throws a wrench in the conjecture that variability in human intelligence is primarily due to genetic factors as the Flynn effect demonstrates otherwise. American whites around the WW2 era would score on average 15 points lower than contemporary American whites. This isn't to say that genetics don't play a role, as up 500 genes (last time I checked) have been found that possibly play a role in intelligence. More research is required, as we don't even have a close to a complete picture that genes have on variability in human intelligence. So you can go ahead and peddle your conjecture here as gospel, but you aren't convincing those of us with better judgment and more respect for the scientific process.
If you consider IQ to be a reliable measure of "g" or cognitive ability, then it throws a wrench in the conjecture that variability in human intelligence is primarily due to genetic factors as the Flynn effect demonstrates otherwise. American whites around the WW2 era would score on average 15 points lower than contemporary American whites. This isn't to say that genetics don't play a role, as up 500 genes have been found that possibly play a role in intelligence. More research is required, as we don't even have a close to a complete picture on the role of genes on variability in human intelligence.
Well said.
Quote:
So you can go ahead and peddle your conjecture here as gospel, but you aren't convincing those of us with better judgment and more respect for the scientific process.
Huh?
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.
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.
Check it out, it's on Youtube.
