True. The very clever have even altered the definition of crime enough to justify their behavior.

Is someone who pours toxic waste into a river any less violent of a criminal simply because his victims never see his face and take years to actually die? His company may pay the fine if caught, but the fine is usually cheaper than the cost of disposal... and corporations are considered legal people. (except you can't incarcerate them or give them a lethal injection)

They know how to strip a branch or twig, stick it into the entrance hole of an ant colony, pull it out and eat the ants. If I found myself in the jungle with the chimps, that might not occur to me. By your logic, I would score low on the chimp IQ test, and the ant capturing chimps would be geniuses.

I am sorry if you think this is rude, but you just do not understand the concept of IQ or what IQ tests are supposed to measure. They do NOT measure acquired knowledge, like knowing how to satisfy one's thirst in the Kalahari desert, or knowing how to capture ants for dinner, or how to make money in the stock market. You have been misinformed.

And I think it is safe to presume that everyone who reads Slate agrees that the drug laws are absurd and unjust. However, not all those in prison for "non-violent" offenses are victims of unjust laws. The two men who raped and murdered the Connecticut doctor's wife and two daughters a few months ago had never been convicted of violent crimes, although they both served many years in prison for crimes like burglary. And I will bet a dollar to a dime that both have low IQs.

Perhaps a good point. But career criminals commit many crimes before they are ever caught. It's a numbers game. I don't think we can conclude that only the dumb murderers and robbers get caught while the smart ones never do.

I am sorry if you think this is rude, but you just do not understand the concept of IQ or what IQ tests are supposed to measure. They do NOT measure acquired knowledge, like knowing how to satisfy one's thirst in the Kalahari desert, or knowing how to capture ants for dinner, or how to make money in the stock market. You have been misinformed.

I think you are overlooking some very basic fundamentals of IQ testing. When IQ tests were first administered in the US to immigrants, the results showed immigrants as inferior and even morons. If you think the tests don't measure acquired knowledge at all you are overlooking the fact that the test require and understanding of the English language, mathematics experience, and spatial relationship skills. All of these are skills that can be improved and learned. How can you be so quick to dismiss the fact that these tests contain and are designed by people with specific skill sets?

If a Kalahari Bushman invented an IQ test, I would think the geeks in pocket protectors would do rather miserably.

Your argument is specious. Have you ever seriously studied the major textbooks on intelligence or read a hundred or so papers by the most respected experts in the field of intelligence research? How many peer reviewed papers have you read about psychometric science? You have the self-delusion that you can imagine things and they are true.

Morgan, this is a prime example of how you refuse to address the points people bring up. Instead of talking about his point, you resort to name calling and name-dropping in the most pretentious way imaginable. If you profess that there is unanimous consensus about intellegence, IQ, or the way the human brain functions I advise you to read more opposing viewpoints on the subject. You can start with Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man," which not only documents the intense bias and racism of IQ testing over the past two-hundred years, but also challenges the very notion that it is even measurable. But we both know you won't read it, because you aren't interested in real discussion.

"You can arm yourself, alarm yourself but there is no where you can run. 'Cause a man with a briefcase can steal more money than any man with a gun".

Not to speak of those whose superior technology of the time allowed them to enriched themselves and their countries from the enslavement of other humans (still in effect today) and theft of property. I say who is the most intelligent, those who live in harmony with the environment or those who destroy the earth and other humans for the sake of something shiny.

The validity of "g", this thing that defies direct measurement, is real because:

a) It is statistically "there."

b) It works in the real world. There is no single discriminator that approaches the value of "g", proxied by an IQ test score, as a predictor of educational or job success or a variety of other behaviors and performance.

c) It has equal predictive power for both sexes, all ages and all populations of mankind. It is independent of race, language and socio-economic status (SES), as Jensen, in his tome, "The 'g' Factor, takes many pages to prove.

d) Tests may be verbal or pictorial, or may simply measure the time it takes to react to and act upon a visual or auditory stimulus.

e) By adulthood it no longer has much to do with childhood advantages or disadvantages.

. The only reason people in prison seem to score lower on tests is because the dumb criminals get caught while the smarter criminals elude detection and captivity.

Epicurius,

I would like, humbly, to make a small point about prison populations: people don't go to prison because they "got caught," but because they have been CONVICTED. Sorry for the caps, but I don't want you and the others in this argument to miss that point.

Who gets convicted? Poor folks. Who gets off? Rich folks. Everybody went nuts when OJ beat a murder charge with expensive legal help, but that's what rich folks do all the time.

Now, it's also true that poor kids are much more likely to have the crap beaten out of them by their parents and other "caregivers," and all that child abuse probably has an effect on their measurable "i.q." They are also far more likely than rich kids to be damaged by lead and other heavy metal poisoning. This stuff adds up. is it enough to affect the curve; to account for the psychometric differences detected by the screamers in this thread? I don't think they can credibly assure me that it isn't.

We've been over this territory before. In the audience at the AEI, Charles Murray was basking in what he understood to be the general approval. Back when he and Herrnstein made such a huge fuss over differences that were principally class-based and were in any case less than standard sibling drift, Murray was eventually exposed as a simple old garden-variety racist. It's amazing how all these old monsters get rehabilitated by a couple of years of expensive food at AEI -- why, look at Elliot Abrams. He did the grand tour of AEI, Heritage and the rest, and now he's back in the White House, making policy again as if Iran/Contra had never happened.

In America, middle class kids eat better, dress better, even breathe better. Poor kids have asthma at rates far higher than is normal in the suburbs. is that race-linked as well? As someone who lost a fair number of relatives in the Holocaust, I find it fantastically beyond mere irony that some jews fall for this crap.

Epicurius,

Jensen -- you mean Arthur Jensen, right? You are aware, i hope, that he haad some serious questiona of his own about the validity of his statistics, given the way they were gathered in the first place.

Also, at the time of his study (the one that got him into so much trouble) serious longditudinal studies of long-term benefits of enriched chld-care and early education had not been done. Now they have, and it turns out some of what he thought about the lack of continuing advantage, and also his other beliefs about environmental influence (of course "science" can "filter that stuff out," right?) were wrong.

For an informative quick read on recednt longditudinal studies go here:

<link>

"G," like the "g spot," is a fata morgana.

Jensen -- you mean Arthur Jensen, right? You are aware, i hope, that he haad some serious questiona of his own about the validity of his statistics, given the way they were gathered in the first place.

Please explain your comment. Jensen is the most respected expert (by far) in the field of differential psychology and human intelligence. He has had a very long career. Are you trying to discredit this man, or some particular finding? If the latter, what is the finding?

Also, at the time of his study (the one that got him into so much trouble)

What study? He has been criticized by the PC police, but not by serious intelligence researchers.

serious longditudinal studies of long-term benefits of enriched chld-care and early education had not been done. Now they have, and it turns out some of what he thought about the lack of continuing advantage, and also his other beliefs about environmental influence (of course "science" can "filter that stuff out," right?) were wrong.

The link you posted is at least a large compilation of longitudinal studies. Not one of them mentions either IQ or intelligence. Instead, they primarily focus on comparisons between intervention cohorts and those who were not subjected to intervention. They primarily cite two worthwhile achievements (assuming their claims are not overstated for political or funding reasons): lower than expected crime rates and higher than expected employment rates.

I fail to see how these relate to any studies done by Jensen. Please explain. If you found actual evidence of boosted IQ, please direct us to that source and offer us a short summary of the results.

Epicurus wrote the following post at 11/04/2007 8:46 PM: The validity of "g", this thing that defies direct measurement, is real because:

Finally, we have someone who gets it. This is a rare event among the people who express their generally uninformed opinions here.

It is nice to know that the world is not completely overrun by the ignorant.

Instead of talking about his point, you resort to name calling

Please quote the material you have in mind with respect to the charge of name calling. I contend that you fabricated it because you want to argue but have no factual material to offer, so you resort to false charges.


If you profess that there is unanimous consensus about intellegence,

Please quote the comments that caused you to conclude that I have claimed a "unanimous consensus about intelligence." There is not. You and I don't agree, do we?


You can start with Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man," which not only documents the intense bias and racism of IQ testing over the past two-hundred years, but also challenges the very notion that it is even measurable. But we both know you won't read it, because you aren't interested in real discussion.

As I have pointed out on several occasions:
Gould was not an expert on human intelligence.
He was very popular among ignorant PC pushers because he told them what they wanted to hear.
He did not publish even one paper on human intelligence in a peer reviewed journal.
His arguments were discussed and disproved by Jensen and Rushton.

read this
Rushton, J. P. (1997). Race, intelligence, and the brain: The errors and omissions of the ‘revised’ edition of S. J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (1996). Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 169-180.
You can find it on his web site.

read this
The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons
Arthur Jensen
Contemporary Education Review
Summer 1982, Volume 1, Number 2, pp. 121-135.
You can find it with Google

Wow Morgan, how convenient that you only include the end of my post and avoid printing the quote of you calling names. Let me refresh your memory:

Your argument is specious. Have you ever seriously studied the major textbooks on intelligence or read a hundred or so papers by the most respected experts in the field of intelligence research? How many peer reviewed papers have you read about psychometric science? You have the self-delusion that you can imagine things and they are true.

Now, I don't know what your thinking process is, but I'm pretty sure calling someone's argument specious is not the most productive way to engage in a discussion. Again, you completely avoid addressing his point and simply call his words specious and attack his personal knowledge, which you know nothing about. Typically, calling someone names and then attacking them personally are not the signs of an enlightened debater. Honestly, it further undermines your already diminished credibility here.

Second, as to the sources you use in rebuttal, if anything, they simply show that there is no consensus on the issue. Thus you arguing so vehemently as if there is makes me question your motives. Furthermore, the sources you cite are highly contested. Jensen has received millions of dollars from the Pioneer Fund which promotes racially based public policy, and he co-authored your first source with Rushton. Are you saying it is impossible that he might have dubious motives to continue promoting this cause?

Even more, your answer just demonstrates your complete unwillingness to read opposing viewpoints which again leads me to conclude:

You are not here to have a real discussion. You have made up your mind on this issue and are only here to promote and indoctrinate us with a contested ideology you have adopted at a fanatic level. Real science is not about adhering to a belief without room for doubt or analysis. You don't seem to have read Gould's book, and clearly don't want to. You seem to disregard the long history of data manipulation and racist intent of "scientists" for the past 200 years trying to justify oppressive regimes. Why is that?

As a side note, I hope you can take a long look at yourself and ask why you are so devoted to promoting ideas of racial intellectual supremacy on a public forum? Why do you spend so much time trying to demonstrate the superiority of such an arbitrary grouping system as race- which the vast majority of scientists agree has no relevance in nature and is a complete social construct. Furthermore, I have read your reply to this question and you are simply wrong to conclude that race strictly represents "breeding groups" as humans have been migrating for millenniums and the mixing of "races" is evident- especially in "Black" people's genetic lineage. Also, your early post saying "it's good enough for the US census" is questionable.

But you don't care, you just want to stand in the street shouting "blacks are dumb," because that is a great way to spend your time. Now go ahead and selectively parse sentences for your reply and ignore other points you don't want to address. We all know you're going to.

Lysenkoism is alive and well in the good ole USA: political ideology trumps conflicting data.

The fear that group differences will be used to justify bad social policy is nonetheless a legitimate fear given history, but it is not an excuse to deny reality.

Morgan, you know a lot about this stuff. Are you a psychologist or educator?

antisocial behavior results in more or less aggressive or exploitive acts than disorganized antisocial behavior. On the organized side: wars, genocide, etc. On the disorganized side: individual crimes.

It takes an awful lot of street murders to counter one Rwanda. Also, propensity for violence escalates dramatically when there is substantial violence in the environment (eg. war zones).

So no, I'm afraid you don't get it.

Instead of looking at what makes people prone to engage in criminal acts, why not look at what makes people resistant to engaging in criminal acts? Social affiliation, a stake in cooperative behavior, etc. Control for those factors, exclude people with overt neurological impairment (eg. frontal lobe trauma, history of closed head injury), and IQ is no longer an issue.