What do you hate the most?

[John_Cage]

FHB,

Thank you for a very interesting post.

A fundamental misconception about such evaluations is that they predict how a candidate will perform in the future.

Simply evaluations cannot and do not predict who will succeed at a certain level. Fairly administered evaluations can only provide information as to who has earned an opportunity to participate at a certain level.

An analogy would be obtaining a license to drive a car. You successfully pass all the required tests and you have the right the obtain a provincial driver's license. This process does not predict that the new driver will not have accidents.

That's very true; if a prediction HAVE to be 100% accurate.

While the new driver MIGHT have accidents, is it likely?

Better yet, is he MORE or LESS likely to have accidents compared to someone who FAILED the same driver's test?

While doing well on IQ tests does NOT mean that you WILL do well in life, it's still a fair prediction.

John Nash ("A Beautiful Mind") and Stephen Hawking and many other handicapped intellectuals from poor backgrounds would tend to be strong arguments against the two points quoted above.

Not quite... Since they would both do VERY well on IQ tests. They are not poor (after they achieved their prespective success). I am guessing you replied before I finished editing my second post (above you). I stated that there are various reason why some highly "intelligent" people would come from a poor background. I am simply stating that it's "less likely". Seeing how most scientists do tend to do well in life (not top 40 under 40 kind), it's pretty much true. What about the scientists who come from RICH backgrounds (or at least, educated backgrounds)? Do you think Sir Issac Newton's son is MORE or LESS likely to be a scientist?

PS: Even when the highly intelligent (for some reason) ended up in a poor background, chances are that he/she will climb his/her way to the top and thus making his/her offsprings Rich (and they will be smart like him/her).

Oh, I didn't mean physical handicap affects intelligence... Unless they actually do... lol.

I meant like "a hit to the head" kind of trauma that tend to affect IQ. I threw that in as a "catch all" to my "Intelligence cannot be altered" statement; in case someone comes up with out-of-the-norm arguments.

"What if you take a hammer to a genius' head? Is he still high IQ afterwards? So it CAN be altered ! U R WRONG !!! lolz !!!111"

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

In the letter of her statement, I agree as well. It's obvious that the tool are not "perfect".

In the spirit of her statement, I disagree. The tools are NOT so imperfect that it fails to do its job. We must accept some degrees of uncertainty and doubt. No tests are perfect.

In the labortory, we perform experiments and we often include any possible uncertainty. We never include the "basic" uncertainty, "inaccuracy of tools". All tools are understood to give a certain degree of accuracy. Beyond that, it's meaningless; but within the accepted degrees of certainty (usually 95%), the results are significant (in other words: meaningful).

In court, we never have to prove that someone commit a crime with 100% certainty. It's call proving beyond a "reasonable doubt". I believe that IQ tests, while imperfect, is "perfectly" capable of generating significant data to classify and catagorize people into IQ groups (as seen in many forms, SATs, the Military's IQ tests... etc...).

I understand what you are saying and I basically agree. I think such tests as IQ, SAT and so on are tools intended for specific purposes. For example, the LSAT is designed to assess the examinee's ability in skills that are deemed important in the legal profession. From what I understand however, SAT, LSAT and so on are only one consideration when a candidate's suitability for acceptance is being assessed. Don't they also take into consideration school grades, community participation, an entrance essay, and recommendations from professors and alumni? And even after all that, many law schools still interview prospective candidates. If testing was so accurate (remember, they are testing a limited set of skills required in the field of law, not the vast range of skills we call "intelligence"), why would they require so much supporting information besides the test result. The only reason can be that LSAT results on their own are not dependable.

When saying "IQ measures Intelligence," we need to understand that to a large extent the testers determine what intelligence comprises. I've never taken an IQ test, but I suspect they test mainly spatial reasoning, problem solving and what not. These are skills that are deemed useful in professions so they are emphasized in the test. For this targeted use, IQ tests are probably a useful indicator. I doubt however that they accurately measure all the skills that "intelligence" comprises. How do you test for networking skills, people skills, emotional maturity, empathy or the ability to perform cunnilingus?

 

[John_Cage]

I understand what you are saying and I basically agree. I think such tests as IQ, SAT and so on are tools intended for specific purposes. For example, the LSAT is designed to assess the examinee's ability in skills that are deemed important in the legal profession. From what I understand however, SAT, LSAT and so on are only one consideration when a candidate's suitability for acceptance is being assessed. Don't they also take into consideration school grades, community participation, an entrance essay, and recommendations from professors and alumni? And even after all that, many law schools still interview prospective candidates. If testing was so accurate (remember, they are testing a limited set of skills required in the field of law, not the vast range of skills we call "intelligence"), why would they require so much supporting information besides the test result. The only reason can be that LSAT results on their own are not dependable.

When saying "IQ measures Intelligence," we need to understand that to a large extent the testers determine what intelligence comprises. I've never taken an IQ test, but I suspect they test many spatial reasoning, problem solving and what not. These are skills that are deemed useful in professions so they are emphasized in the test. For this targeted use, IQ tests are probably a useful indicator. I doubt however that they accurately measure all the skills that "intelligence" comprises. How do you test for networking skills, people skills, emotional maturity, empathy or the ability to perform cunnilingus?

Well, I can't and won't argue your first point (without being wrong, lol). It's certain that many things "make a good lawyer"; intelligence is but ONE of the factors. I am not arguing the "importance" of Intelligence; I am merely arguing how well IQ tests measure it.

As to your second point, Intelligence is defined as "Ability to Reason". It could be a personnal preference, but I tend to only focus on "Logical Ability" when I speak of "Intelligence". Personality and charm, while important in their own right, are not considered to be "Intelligence" (by me, and I believe most other don't see it as hardcore "Intelligence").

Well, if the general understanding (and definition) of "Intelligence" is changed to INCLUDE these things... Then I figure that IQ tests would have to be improved (how? I don't know... People skills are hard to quantify).

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

If your assertion that is valid and intelligence, however defined and measured, is even partly inherited, why can't 1) be a contributing factor in the poor testing poorly?

anon_alad, thank you for bringing up this point, because it will force me to clarify what in the end I find to be wrong with John Cage's argument.

The thing is, I actually agree with a lot of what John Cage is saying. I don't deny that tests are useful and accurate in a limited context. I also don't exclude the possibility that smart couples might have smart children and stupid couples might have stupid children. (Notice, I'm using the word "stupid." I'm not a person who needs things sugar-coated.) In limited context or when dealing with specific individuals, all these suggestions are reasonable.

However, despite my acceptance of the above points, I do object to any suggestion that rich people are where they are due to innate intelligence. In fact, I find it offensive. Why? For two reasons:

First, because it fails to take into account a larger environment of uneven distribution of wealth and stratification of socio-economic class, not to mention a host of other factors that are part and parcel of human society. Neither psychology nor socio-economics is an exact science like math, and to come to the conclusion that "IQ measures Intelligence which determines SE status" is too simplistic for use in the larger real-world context. I can understand how it might be intellectually pleasing to a university student trying to figure out the world, but I find it denigrating to the poor. Basically what John Cage has done is look at what is perhaps the most complicated and enduring issue facing mankind---the distribution of wealth---and whittled it all down to IQ.

Second, I find that an insistance on the accuracy of IQ tests combined with insistance on a link between intelligence and wealth smacks dangerously of the eugenics movement of the 1920s and 1930s. Back then similarly naive connections (for example, between head shape and intelligence) were made based on shallow and politically motivated observations.

We all know that there is an income disparity between blacks and whites in the US. How do we account for this? Are we supposed to accept that the income gap is due to lower innate intelligence in blacks?

In my opinion, the issue of the relation between intelligence and socio-economic standing cannot be meaningfully argued separate from the larger context. However, once the issue is examined in the larger context, it becomes almost meaningless due to the presence of a variety of societal factors that are all more important.

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

Two Articles on IQ and Environment

Myth: The black/white IQ gap is largely genetically caused.
Fact: Almost all studies show the black/white IQ gap is environmental.

Summary
Since the publishing of The Bell Curve, a definitive study has come out of Columbia and Northwestern Universities demolishing the theory that the white/black IQ gap is largely genetically caused. But even at the time The Bell Curve was published, there was no reason to make such a claim. Of the seven major scientific studies on genes, race and IQ, six suggested that genes play no role in the IQ gap between whites and blacks, and only one suggested a genetic cause. Statistical objections can be raised to all seven early studies, but at the very least, The Bell Curve had no grounds whatsoever to imply that the IQ gap is largely genetic.

Full Article: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-IQgapgenetic.htm

Closing the Black/White IQ Gap?
Full article: http://www.reason.com/news/show/116991.html

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

Article on IQ-Income Relation

NEWS RELEASE

11/09/94

CONTACT: Stanford University News Service (415) 723-2558
'IQ does not explain black-white income differences,' economist says

STANFORD--Recent claims that IQ at birth determines one's fortunes in life are based on flawed interpretations of statistical data, according to labor economist Martin Carnoy, a Stanford professor of education.

In Faded Dreams, to be published this month by Cambridge University Press, Carnoy argues that contrary to Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's assertions in The Bell Curve, large changes in African Americans' achievement and income can result, and have resulted, from government action.
Full article: http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/94/941109Arc4057.html

 

[Fat Happy Buddha]

Public release date: 12-Sep-2006
Contact: Wray Herbert
Association for Psychological Science

Black-white IQ gap has narrowed

In a paper to be published in the October issure of the journal Psychological Science, William Dickens and James Flynn show that the gap in measured cognitive ability between blacks and whites has narrowed by at least a quarter since 1972. The researchers analyzed nationally representative samples of blacks and whites on four different tests of cognitive ability. On all four tests, blacks show large gains relative to whites with results varying somewhat across the different tests. Pooling the results, the researchers find that blacks have gained an average of .18 IQ points a year on whites from 1972 to 2002 for a total gain of 5.4 IQ points. Further, blacks have gained on whites at all points in the distribution of ability, with gains being only modestly lower for those in the top 10 percent.

These gains in cognitive ability have come during a time when blacks have made notable progress towards social and economic equality in some areas and suggest the possibility that further progress will bring further IQ gains.
Link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/afps-big091206.php

 

[z/m(Ret)]

You made up that word. I googled it...not in google..not a word...
Now..I know..why I can't understand half of your posts....

So no one gets offended. Sorry guys, I'm having a bad case of the stupids this morning. Dearest Elf, I love you.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Ziggy, while I believe you are a very capable thinker, I am kind of surprised at how reserved you are at simply stating an opinion. I mean, surely, no one's 100% sure of the validity of an IQ test; nor is anyone capable of being 100% sure that "Intelligence" is innate (at this point). An opinion merely requires 50%+ certainty.

Too long, reading Mac Luhan's Understanding Media, troglodytewatching... Intelligence: not completely innate, not completely acquired. IQ tests: imperfect tools. Done.

 

[eastender]

Reality

That's very true; if a prediction HAVE to be 100% accurate.

While the new driver MIGHT have accidents, is it likely?

Better yet, is he MORE or LESS likely to have accidents compared to someone who FAILED the same driver's test?
"
While doing well on IQ tests does NOT mean that you WILL do well in life, it's still a fair prediction.




Not quite... Since they would both do VERY well on IQ tests. They are not poor (after they achieved their prespective success). I am guessing you replied before I finished editing my second post (above you). I stated that there are various reason why some highly "intelligent" people would come from a poor background. I am simply stating that it's "less likely". Seeing how most scientists do tend to do well in life (not top 40 under 40 kind), it's pretty much true. What about the scientists who come from RICH backgrounds (or at least, educated backgrounds)? Do you think Sir Issac Newton's son is MORE or LESS likely to be a scientist?

PS: Even when the highly intelligent (for some reason) ended up in a poor background, chances are that he/she will climb his/her way to the top and thus making his/her offsprings Rich (and they will be smart like him/her).

Oh, I didn't mean physical handicap affects intelligence... Unless they actually do... lol.

I meant like "a hit to the head" kind of trauma that tend to affect IQ. I threw that in as a "catch all" to my "Intelligence cannot be altered" statement; in case someone comes up with out-of-the-norm arguments.

"What if you take a hammer to a genius' head? Is he still high IQ afterwards? So it CAN be altered ! U R WRONG !!! lolz !!!111"

Evaluations are not predictions nor do they claim to be.To date they are the best instrument available.

Assuming respect for the law of the land,the successful candidate is MORE likely to have an accident while driving since the failed candidate would not be driving and therefore would have zero probability of having an accident.

Sir Isaac Newton by the standards of his time came from a well-off background BUT his father could not sign his name. Sir Isaac Newton never married nor is he alleged to have fathered children.

John Nash (Schizophrenia) and Stephen Hawking (ALS) sustained their IQ thru ordeals that were more traumatic than your "hammer to the head" scenario.Your sad "hammer to the head" scenario also eliminates any concept of fairness from the testing process.

The two sons fathered by John Nash - different mothers, the second mother being an intellectual peer of John Nash to date have not shown any signs of genius.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Let me get this staight:
You "made two claims: 1. Intelligence is innate"

Next, when t76 said poor kids will perform worse, you said the correlation was "DUE to a difference in IQ; SE background showed correlation with IQ test performance because IQ test performance LED to SE background."

So am I right in concluding that you are stating that the poor child performs worse because of his lack of innate intelligence? And by innate, do you mean "present from birth: relating to qualities that a person or animal is born with"?

Je signalais plus tôt que le raisonnement de JC comportait un vice de forme en ceci qu'il confondait l'intelligence pure avec la mesure de celle-ci, un peu comme s'il n'existait aucun décalage entre la mesure et l'objet mesuré.

Suivant sa logique, le test de QI serait lui-même de l'intelligence pure, c'est-à-dire invariable, inaltérable, possédant une essence propre sur laquelle les phénomènes extérieurs n'auraient aucun impact. D'ailleurs, si on poussait le raisonnement plus loin, le test de QI serait, lui-même, intelligence.

La réalité nous enseigne cependant qu'une mesure n'est jamais parfaite et qu'elle n'est pas inaltérable ni isolée des facteurs extérieurs. Elle nous enseigne aussi que la mesure (et, par extension, toute description géométrique) d'un objet n'est pas l'objet lui-même, mais bien une représentation toujours imparfaite dudit objet.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

A fundamental misconception about such evaluations is that they predict how a candidate will perform in the future.

Exactement. Au mieux, de telles évaluations réussissent à décrire l'état présent du sujet: une photo instantanée qui ne cherche nullement à s'inscrire dans la durée.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Clearly, if you talking about a correlation between adult IQ and income, you're not really saying much more than "smart people are more likely to make more money."

Les individus dont le QI a été mesuré dans le premiers centiles (percentile est un calque de l'anglais) aboutissent souvent à des carrières plus ou moins bien rémunérées dans des centres de recherche universitaires. En contrepartie, un champion du monde en boxe, gagnant des millions par combat, n'a pas nécessairement un QI élevé.

S'il n'en tenait qu'à l'argent, on aurait parfois avantage à être idiot plutôt qu'intelligent.

 

[JustBob]

Myth: The black/white IQ gap is largely genetically caused.

In order to prove that the above statement is true, you'd have to take a "black" population, a "white" population, isolate them in identical environments with no interbreeding whatsoever, wait about 40,000 years, and then run your IQ tests. "Black", "white", "African American", "European", "Caucasian", "Asian", etc... have absolutely no basis in genetic categorization and are NOT examples of intra-specific variation within Homo sapiens sapiens

Someone wake me up when the results come out.

 

[John_Cage]

In order to prove that the above statement is true, you'd have to take a "black" population, a "white" population, isolate them in identical environments with no interbreeding whatsoever, wait about 40,000 years, and then run your IQ tests. "Black", "white", "African American", "European", "Caucasian", "Asian", etc... have absolutely no basis in genetic categorization and are NOT examples of intra-specific variation within Homo sapiens sapiens

Someone wake me up when the results come out.

Well, there are definitely interbreeding going in North America. The "cause" of IQ difference was suggested (not by me) to be generations of natural selection. The cooler weather conditions in Europe and Asia favored larger cranials while the tropical weather conditions in Africa favored physical powress. They also suggested that since food are harder to come by in a "colder" climate, it's more likely for the "intelligent" to survive in Europe and Asia (don't shoot, I am just restating what I found).

This statement isn't meant to be racist, because I believe that "races" in scientific terms... do not exist. "Races" are basicly a visual cue to identify people; it could've easily be based on height or running speed or the ratio between arm and legs... etc...

The reason there's a difference in IQ between the "blacks" and "whites" during the time of the publication of "The Bell Curve" is that the races are not mixed enough.

Note that I am NOT saying Blacks are dumber, I am saying the African population (due to varies reasons) had favored OTHER qualities over intelligence. This cause the CURRENT Africans to display the natural selection process of lower IQ. THIS IS DIFFERENT than saying Blacks has lower IQ; this is saying that the natural selection process of the Blacks FAVORED low IQ.

Since the blacks in North America no longer need to run fast or jump high... their selection process begins to favor high intelligence (the survival the fittest). The lower IQ blacks probably produce less surviving offspring (dead or in jail). Thus, the average IQ of blacks are "Increasing".

This is ONE reason. The other is the "mixing" of the "races". Since genetic selection has favored "intelligence" in Europe and Asia, their gene pool tend to be composed of HIGH IQ individuals. When Europeans or Asians mix with other "races", the distribution of "high IQ" genes becomes less polar. That's what caused the regression toward the NORM (IQs are always regressing toward the Norm).

Basically, within a thousand years, all "races" would cease to exist and all genes would be distributed without any discrimination.

Edit: This post of "natural selection" might suggest to some people that Intelligence are not innate (but acquired through natural selection). That is false (at least within the scope of this post). The Intelligence of an INDIVIDUAL is innate (due to his/her genes), BUT the OVERALL intelligence of his/her "race" (group of people who breeds in the same geographic location) can be altared through centuries of "natural selection".

 

[joelcairo]

Fine, I decide to play it your way. You cared about your precious spelling and your little mistakes; yet I caught you (badly) and OWNED you at your own little game.

I am not going to start a debate about "spelling", since I just established that you are not someone who's qualified to mutter objections to my writing. If you have something to contribute to the actual discussion, please do so. Otherwise, do something else constructive.

Sorry, John, although I agree that you seem to do most things "badly", you did not catch me (badly or otherwise) or "own" me. The fact that you choose to state something does not make it true. You have "established" nothing. You are not qualified to judge anyone's capabilities regarding the English language, as your posts have repeatedly proven that you have difficulties with many of its fundamentals.

In another recent thread, you called me an "ass". It is common knowledge that someone who lacks an intelligent rebuttal will often stoop to name-calling. You have done so; I have not. Were you trying to defame (or "deframe", as you would say) me?

Please note that virtually every post you make exhibits your sad lack of knowledge of the basic principles of grammar, spelling, and logic (no, not "logics"). If you disagree, please take your posts and mine to your esteemed editors. If you have the courage, ask these experts whose writing is superior.

You have written elsewhere that you do not care what people think of you. Actually, I believe you care a great deal, which is why you will argue ad infinitum to defend yourself even when all parties involved are anonymous! I believe that you are attempting to validate your feelings of self-worth by proclaiming yourself to be a "writer" (chuckle) and by always striving to have the last word. You did it with the little kid who humiliated you on the bus. You were powerless when it happened, so you came onto MERB and got your revenge by starting a post on the incident. Any time anyone questions or challenges you, any time anyone disagrees with you, any time anyone points out one of your myriad errors, you must respond.

Well, John, this is your lucky day. Having proven that you are an emperor with no clothes, I am cheerfully letting you know that I will not respond further. There you have it: carte blanche to reply - as you undoubtedly will - with one of your typically fatuous and ill-conceived attacks. That's not a problem, John, because it should be acutely obvious to anyone who has read your postings that they are essentially without merit.

By the way, if you are planning to make a career as a "writer", it might be wise to learn how to drive a bus - purely as a backup plan, you understand.

Now have fun writing your response. Don't worry about trying to impress me. First, you would not succeed. Second, I won't be reading it.

 

[JustBob]

BUT the OVERALL intelligence of his/her "race" (group of people who breeds in the same geographic location) can be altared through centuries of "natural selection".

No. As I stated above, this argument would only be valid if a population had been isolated for tens of thousands of years with no interbreeding with other populations whatsoever. I can think of no example of a human population that has been completely isolated for that long. Populations of Europe haven't been genetically isolated from people of central and even southern Africa for millenia. How long do you think it took for Galapagos cormorants to become flightless? What would have happened if you had introduced flying cormorants at some point on the islands? As soon as you introduce other genes, the argument falls apart.

 

[anon_vlad]

Originally Posted by John_Cage
I am saying the African population (due to varies reasons) had favored OTHER qualities over intelligence. This cause the CURRENT Africans to display the natural selection process of lower IQ. THIS IS DIFFERENT than saying Blacks has lower IQ; this is saying that the natural selection process of the Blacks FAVORED low IQ.

There is a common misconception about the "survival of the fittest" component of Darwin's theories. It connotes fittest to spread one's genes. Do you think dumb Africans are more likely to get laid? I presume by other qualities, you mean athletic abilities e.g. being able to run quickly from predators. Is there any reason to suppose that intelligent people run more slowly?

 

[JustBob]

Remember that psychiatrist who lost his job? What's his name... Doc Mailloux?
t76

My guess is that most of this stuff comes from J. Philippe Rushton, specifically from his book "Race, Evolution and Behavior". Apparently, he still has his job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton

I mean, how can one question the validity of his research and methodology:

Zack Cernovsky, in the Journal of Black Studies, has made several criticisms, such as "some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum."

Hahahaha!

Seriously, those broad generalizations (again, correlation does not equate causation) have little basis in science. Those claims based on climate and craniology have little to no merit. For example, if you're going to argue that climate selects against intelligence then you'd have to explain: Why would it do that in Africa but not in equatorial Asia? How would this be consistent with the origins of H. sapiens (including massive increase in brain size) in equatorial Africa? And if the concern is with the relationship between brain size and mental capacities, why subdivide your groupings according to climate (i.e. include another variable)? And if you find a correlation between encephalization and intelligence, then you should find the same correlation within groups (in this case "race"). Oh, and men have larger brains than women. Should we conclude from this that women are dumber? Or just more cunning?

 

[cchaser1970]

Correlation

Remember that psychiatrist who lost his job? What`s his name... Doc Mailloux? He had his own radio show. Remember? You know why he lost his job (both on the radio show and as a psychiatrist)? Because he was pushing the same theory as you. Actually, he put it exactly like you too (paraphrasing ): "The "cause" of IQ difference was suggested (not by me) to be generations of natural selection." He said it on national television. So it must be true! (Just like since you found it on GOOGLE in "like, not even two seconds" it MUST BE TRUE...) He said it wasn`t him who said it first, but other `scientists` (actually, he said: "I have the study on the backseat of my car" ). You know which study he was referring to? I know, because the first anthropology class I ever took (I dropped out of anthropology after 3 classes because I`m not a Relativist either ) went over all the BS theories that came out of the discipline, and this one (early 50s) was one of them. It came after CRANIOLOGY (early 20th; theory that the size of the skull is linked to a particular intelligence). You know why these theories were put in the `BS theory` category? No, not because of difference of opinion or `liberal bleeding-heart syndrome`. BECAUSE THE `SCIENTISTS` WHO PUBLISHED THEM INVENTED THEIR NUMBERS AND WERE PUSHING AN IDEOLOGICAL POSITION THUS--NOT SCIENCE. American or Canadian universities (at least, those where the difference between correlation and causal relation is understood as I understand it--not as you understand it; and schools that are still allowed to push Creationism as the absolute truth don`t count either ) unanimously denounced them as PSEUDOSCIENCE, a long time ago. So come back to me when you have actual science to support your claims. Oh, not because on Merb we have to cite our sources but because if you want to get in a bigger-than-you debate you`re going to have to start showing at least SOME evidence, like a peer reviewed study, you know, the kind published in academic journals NOT the web. Well, only if your goal is to convince me you`re more right than Doc Mailloux



Nice save. Not.



Ever hear about Jane Elliot? Type her name in google and "blue eye brown eye experiment". A summary: The experiment was run over two days. A class of schoolchildren was told there was `proof` that kids who had blue eyes were smarter than those who had brown eyes. Kids who had blue eyes promptly started oppressing the brown eyed kids. Brown eyed kids promptly responded by taking on their oppressed role. Blue-eyed kids had no trouble answering the teacher`s questions. Brown eyed kids made more mistakes and didn`t want to answer the questions after a while. The next day, the professor came back and said there had been a mistake. It was actually brown-eyed kids that were smarter. You would have expected those kids who had experienced being mocked and oppressed to not do it back to the blue-eyed kids right? Well no. They just as quickly took on their new roles.

The study was recently repeated (and has often been repeated over the last decades, with the same results) in a Quebec school, for a TV show on a French channel called Zone Libre. I think you can go download it on Radio-Canada. Parents gave their permission for the kids to be in this experiment. It was a very hard thing to watch.

Elliot originally came up with the idea to better understand how discrimination works. Not only are people more likely to discriminate against people if they belong to the culturally accepted `better group`, but belonging to a discriminated group has a CLEAR impact on will-- not `intelligence`, read carefully: that kids who were discriminated against no longer WANTED to even try to answer the prof`s questions, or if they did, made more mistakes, even if these kids had been top of their class before. In other words, if you put those same kids in front of an IQ test, instead of a prof asking you to go answer a question on the blackboard, their WILL to complete the IQ test as successfully as possible will be impacted, and indeed, as I`ve recently been made aware of, when the Elliot experiment was redone with an IQ test (in a documentary for PBS), the `smart` blue-eyed kids scored BETTER on average then the brown-eyed kids who had been told they were stupid.

I forgot to mention that the professor in all this would say to the brown-eyed kids, when they made a mistake: `Oh, it`s ok. That`s because you have brown eyes and are less intelligent than the blue-eyed kids.`




That`s an ideological position, not a `theory` that has been scientifically demonstrated as true.




You sound exactly like Mailloux. Didn`t he teach at McGill on the side? I forget which university it was. Good parrot, you.




Find me a standardized IQ test that can test people from all the nations of the world without discrimination to the knowledge that is valued in their society. Ok, maybe that`s too hard. Find me a peer-reviewed study that supports what you`ve just said. Find it on Google if you want, it`s ok. Like the UN World IQ report. That must be available online.



Blah, blah, blah. Stick to physics or biochemistry or whatever subject it is that you are knowledgeable enough to discuss without talking out of your (_Y_) (sorry, please don`t take me too seriously I love you too)




I didn`t say that "there`s a correlation between poor kids and poor performance (IQ and/or school)." I didn`t say poor kids were more likely to have low academic acheivement but kids with low SE status were more likely to have low academic achievement as compared to kids with high SE status. Poor socio-economic status means a heck of a lot more than being poor. I say you go back to grammar school because quite clearly, you lack in the reading skills required to debate this sort of thing. Also, I didn`t `suggest` a connection, I expressed a convention in this field of research, based on evidence. Quite different from pseudoscience.

And you know why I never say `cause` instead of `correlation`? Because the convention is also that we can`t `prove` much with respect to human behavior, social, political, etc, whatever you want to call it, because there are TOO MANY POSSIBLE CONFOUNDING VARIABLES.

Good day,

t76

Visits following thread.

https://merb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=27029

Where is the correlation that allows you to link the add to make 70$ as escort
with fault? Why blames your parents? Why ask governments help?