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.

I am not soliciting your advice about productivity, I am asking you to quote the material, from me, which shows that I resorted to name calling. Please do so now, or offer your apology.

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.

Please quote the name calling in question. I commented on the obvious lack of knowledge in the field under discussion. My observation is correct.

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.

Should I be concerned over your impression of my motives? I have explained that my motivation is the shine the bright light of truth on the massive ignorance that is being presented here by people who have no understanding of the topic.


Furthermore, the sources you cite are highly contested. Jensen has received millions of dollars from the Pioneer Fund

Please present your source of the amount of money Jensen received. Most intelligence researchers have received money from the Pioneer Fund because there is are not a lot of sources available. If you want to attack the Pioneer Fund, please have fun. Whether or not it has had valid criticism for distant past policies, I don't know, but I do know that it is presently a very well run and honest source of funding.

Both Jensen and Rushton are intelligent and honest researchers. Both have made huge contributions to the understanding of human intelligence and both have been attacked by PC maddened radicals.

Are you saying it is impossible that he might have dubious motives to continue promoting this cause?

I know both people and, yes, can and do say that both are honest and highly respected researchers.
J. Philippe Rushton: B.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc., F.B.Ps.S., the fourth and current president of the Pioneer Fund.
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.

Do you consider those charges to be applicable to you? I am well informed on this topic and you are not.

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.

Please demonstrate that your comment about "vast majority" is true. I say it is not true and that you are willing to fabricate claims in order to appear knowledgable, while taking a righteous PC stance.

Furthermore, I have read your reply to this question and you are simply wrong to conclude that race strictly represents "breeding groups"

You didn't read very closely, did you? I did not say that race strictly represents breeding groups. I referenced breeding groups as an appropriate way of looking at human populations. There are three races and numerous subraces and clines. It is completely to refer to these as breeding groups.

But you don't care, you just want to stand in the street shouting "blacks are dumb,"

I resent your hostile comment and your attribution to me of something that you wrote and which I did not. I demand an apology and will consider reporting your behavior as abuse, under the terms defined by Slate.

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

Unfortunately, you are right. I have been dismayed by the determination of people here to argue for what they want to be true, while ignoring reality. The level of ignorance is also surprising, which is why I was very happy to see that you were among those who understand.

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.

That has been going on since the 60s, when even educated people believed that the social environment was a determinant of intelligence. Now that the facts are on the table, the PC people have run from the table to pretend that it is not there.

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

I would prefer to not say, but I can tell you that I am close to this field and understand it.

Have you ever studied Epistemology, cultural Anthropology or the morphology of biology or folklore? Do you even know about clines? Your focus on race suggests not.

I never claimed to be an expert in your "chosen" fields of controversial soft-science. We've been through this on the other thread. I do not need to be an expert in psychometrics to have an opinion. And regardless of how you feel about my opinion, you would do well to be polite and respectful. You have pointed the finger at plenty of posters labelling them name-callers when that is your stock and trade. Psychologists call that projection.

I humbly recommend you broaden your education a bit and become more conversant with some of the other fields of science... or at least some common courtesy.

Sophistication, my friend, is, in most cultures, judged by one's manners, bearing, and cordiality. The fact that you have alienated a half dozen posters in the past 24hrs suggests that you could work on yours a bit more.

You don't agree with me. I get it. Perhaps you should stop replying to my posts. Or, are you merely looking for attention?

"Rich people (of every hue) tend to use more drugs than poor people. Yet, they are less likely to be harassed, searched, arrested, or convicted."

The wealthy of every hue are less likely to have expired tags on their plates (registration). The wealthy of every hue are less likely to be looking to score by driving at 10 mph. down a public street where drugs are sold. The wealthy of every hue do are less likely to rob for funding their habit. The wealthy of every hue are less likely to be, in the parlance of 1995, "crack whores."

Sure these are consequences to the "rules of the game" but so what?

Acquired wisdom is just that. My grandmother knew the latin and common names of many plants and their properties. Great lady. But that is not a measure or intelligence. Gardner has his seven types of intelligence. There is no need to punt on the issue becaue you prefer "happiness."

Unless, you have determined that any answer must preserve the notion that all humans are equal and any inequality is the result of marginalization.

Hello Miguel,

I for one, certainly do not think that all people are equal. I wouldn't even want to live in such a world. I think that different people have different innate and cultural skills. Synergistically, I feel all of our lives are improved when we utilize and appreciate all of our various skills. I do not feel "intelligence" (as defined by the various IQ tests) is the most valuable skill set to possess. The richest people in our society are not the ones with the highest IQ, nor are the richest people or the high IQ groups the happiest.

My premise is very simple. Deceptively so. I simply put forth my extremely, and oft-admitted, subjective opinion that the people I respect as being "smart" and "intelligent" are the one's who have figured out how to be happy. There is no argument to refute here. No agenda to expose. No ignorance to enlighten. I have merely made a haphazard (given the limitations of the medium) case for my opinion.

A good friend of mine who was also Triple 9, and a professor at Cal-Tech attempted suicide 3 times... finally successfully.
I know plenty of millionaires, and famous people personally... most of them are seriously depressed. IQ, wealth, degrees, honors, and accolades are worthless if you are not enjoying your life. All the things people try so hard to achieve are simply means to the end of making them happier. Money, family, power, possessions... these are all objects people chase in the hope of filling the horrible void in their souls. Truly wise individuals see this, and cut to the chase, cutting out the middle-men objects. They pursue happiness directly.

Any test that a Taoist Grandmaster would score lower on than a suicidal, meth-using lab tech, is simply not judging true intelligence... regardless of what the test-makers (with their obvious vested interest) would have us believe. IMHO

Good post JahSun. A nice way to highlight that there are more important things we as a society could be focusing on then making people test better.

I also grew up with a lot of rich and "powerful" people and knew many more during college and graduate school. But the happiest people I knew were the ones destined to be the least economically successful. I can't tell you how many friends I have who graduated from top Universities and rushed off to jobs they hate to get money to buy stuff they don't really need or even want. So much of their behavior, and some of the behavior of people on this forum is simply to try and look smart or impressive to other people.

All one has to do is talk to corporate lawyers to realize how meaningless economic and IQ test "success" is. So many lawyers, businessmen, and investment bankers I know are utterly miserable, divorced, and stressed to suicidal levels- just downright unhappy with their lives. This is perfectly represented in the film Ikiru, where a Japanese government worker gets a terminal illness and realizes his entire life was wasted doing meaningless work that benefited no one. He then spends his last remaining moments trying to improve people's lives.

We can sit and argue all day about 'g', nature vs. nurture and what have you, but at the end of the day, it seems obvious that there is a more important aspect of humanity than producing people with high IQs. How about we improve people's kindness towards one another, and more importantly EMPATHY, so people might understand how their vehement statements of superiority might affect the psyche of marginalized people worldwide. Simply put, there is a way to treat other people, and that might be a lesson that might not improve our collective intelligence, but would certainly help our common sense.

MorganLee,

Apparently you worship Jensen or something. People who construct their expertise narrowly are always subject to professional cults. You do not appear to be an exception to that rule.

As you are perfectly aware, Jensen's book on "g" was not received with universal acclaim. "G" is a statistical and ideological construct and not something that was always present but had to await Jensen's discovery to be made visible to the rest of us. It is, at best, a statistical artifact. You choose to worship this artifact. I do not.

My comment regarding Jensen's reservations about psychometric statistics was a reference to Jensen's experience of testing balck children for i.q. and then retesting them after some time spent playing with them and allowing them to achieve a measure of comfort in his presence. Their test results improved by eight to ten points.

If Jensen is your model, why are you so much faster to rush to judgement than he is? And why do you post insults and personal attacks (which is fine) and then lie about it (which is not so fine)?

Further, you posted earlier (I think it was you, but it might have been one of the other psychomeretricians) that there is a clear correlation between "g" and academic performance. The North Carolina longditudinal study tracks academic performance through college and establishes a clear link between enriched day care, WHICH IS ENVIRONMENTAL, and long-term academic performance. That contradicts your statements about "g" and Jensen's early belief that i.q. differences between "cohorts" are not environmenatlly caused, and that environmental advantages are not long-term in effect.

You seem to know this and then try to hide behind a bunch of professional language and refusal to face the obvious. I am capable of distinguishing between Jensen and the regrettable Jensenists who have been a kind of academic infestation, rather like Social Darwinists. You appear to be one of those people. Appearances sometimes deceive, and you might not be one of those arid little crypto-fascists. Then again maybe you are.

MorganLee,

I have reread your posts in this thread. I find them snotty, arrogant and often assaultive. You constantly demant specific citations and you won't find one here -- what I've just told you is MY OPINION.

You also do a dishonest job of defending the Pioneer Fund -- which, you claim, is a disinterested funder of scientific research. As you doubtless know, if you are familiar with its history (and if you aren't you should be), the Fund has a history of bankrolling eugenicists and other nut cases, and had as a specific aspect of its charter (1937) teh encouragement of racial purity. You claim that criticism of the Fund and of its pets is the work of PC-mad and sience-iognorant zealots. This is at best dishonest.

I conclude that you are one of the racists the Fund has sheltered and lent a spurious academic credibility for too long. I no longer wish to discuss anything with you. Youare not worth a second more of my time.

moisemetellus:

what is it about the drug trade that people like the least ? isn't it the shootings, the violence ? tell me who's doing that ? It's not the party animals in beverly hills. Thus, they're prety much a problem only to themselves and their families. Young men who shoot and get violent around each other and random people are a problem. for good reasons . You know it. Even the people in the hood know what's the worst problem .

Pretty much the same thing my grandparents felt about the illegal alcohol trade during prohibition. So, the really adverse impacts of illegal drug use are not the result of the drugs themselves, but rather arise because they are illegal.

You say, "I do not feel 'intelligence' (as defined by the various IQ tests) is the most valuable skill set to possess."

Fine. But what my better-informed friends here have been saying: merely because it is not the ultimate measure of happiness, wisdom, contentment... does not mean there is not a peculiar and demonstrable correlation being discussed here.

I'm glad you've discovered that material possession, power, etc. are not the key to contentment. Those of us who still feel compelled to operate in the materialistic 'city of man' will continue to ask questions for the sake of knowledge itself. Galileo challenged church orthodoxy, (earth is not the center of the Universe - or even this solar system) and no one was happier or healthier for his knowledge. But I thank him for his quest.

If you choose to seek enlightenment through the "three traesures" thats fine. The folks who cured polio, and who can stop TB, and the folks who operate logistics to deliver medicine - they are grumpy, they suffer depression, etc. The weight of gravitas and potestas, the weight of policy decisions - these are a burden,

Understand that some of us will react to a righteous and obscurist approach badly. Elevating eastern philosphy/religion/wisdom is just that. Thus of us who don't recognize Zhang Daoling and Laozi...

You say you make have asserted no argument to refute, and yet you made several factual assertions about drug use, criminalizing behavior, etc. that imply an agenda.

If you simply reject the value of intelligence qua intelligence, maybe you're in the wrong place. If you are wholly disinterested in discussing the specific topic - I.Q scores and race/ethinicity, why are you here?

P.S. - its not humble to ask if an individual who responds to you has studied epistemology, or to mention that you know 'plenty of millionaires,' or to mention you have taken the effort to become a member of the Triple 9 Society. Keep working on Bugan wei tianxia xian

This thread is called "IQ means something"

My belief is that it is fairly well meaningless as an indicator of true intelligence. How is this the wrong forum for me to express that view?

If you would like to engage in a purely academic discussion of psychometrics & intelligence research, you can do that. This, however is a place for open exchange of ideas. Merely asserting a set of weighted statistics is not an idea. The vocal Jensen/ Spearman fan-club here does not hold the holy ground of pure science, nor do they put forth a majority opinion.

The drug statistics were not my assertions, simply some figures to put the arguments of other posters into perspective. To even elaborate further, self-described African Americans have been observed to be 14% of drug users. They are 36% of those arrested, and they are 63% of those incarcerated. If you believe this to be a product of IQ, you are entitled to your opinion. If you do not see social racism in the enforcement and jurisprudence surrounding the law, than I'm not sure anything else I say will sway you. Miguel sounds latino, perhaps then you are familiar with racism and racial profiling?

Galileo challenged church orthodoxy, (earth is not the center of the Universe - or even this solar system) and no one was happier or healthier for his knowledge.

I disagree. The science that came from Galileo, Kepler, Newton et.al has enriched all of our lives tremendously. We could not be having this remote exchange were it not for the discoveries that built upon their foundations. I also disagree that inventors, doctors or politicians need be grumpy or depressed. There are numerous examples of people who managed to carry these "burdens" and still live happy, enjoyable lives. Einstein was frequently grinning foolishly for no apparent reason. The Dalai Lama has more "weight of policy decision" than nearly any political leader on the globe, and he is generally smiling serenely.

I do not wish to elevate Taoism in particular. I do feel that Grandmasters in the neo-Taoist internal arts are among the happiest, healthiest, and longest lived individuals on Earth. (look it up) There are plenty of roots people who smile more and enjoy their lives more than westerners. The Tzutujil, Fijians, and Bhutanese immediately come to mind. (groups which don't fit nicely into the three race model I would add)

I'm obviously not disinterested in the subject. I simply hold the opposite opinion from the original post. Any discussion that does not invite opposing ideas, is not really a discussion. That is what conventions in Vegas are for. I'm sure there is no law against having a "blacks are intellectually inferior" convention somewhere. Perhaps Idaho would be better than Nevada, though...

PS I'm working on the humility thing. Epistemology, being the study of knowledge and what is knowable, is a very important adjunct to this discussion, and one which most intelligence researchers have little understanding of. I mentioned the Triple 9s because it is an organization based on high IQ scores....

I will keep working... and smiling.

Thank you soundgarden. (black hole sun, anyone?)

Our society surely could use a re-evaluation of priorities. People talk about morals and values while spouting barbarism. Overspecialization keeps people from seeing the forest for the trees. Sometimes simplistic concepts are the most relevant.

Our world needs more unity and empathy for sure. The problems we face are more & more global, so the solutions will require cooperation and mutual respect. There is only one race that I can see: The Human Race. And, there is only one statistic that matters... survival on a world we still enjoy living on.

Peace.

Dear mel,

As you are perfectly aware, Jensen's book on "g" was not received with universal acclaim.

Of course not. The press and PC people fear such books. It has been very well received by intelligence research scholars. It is not the most cited book in the field of intelligence.

"G" is a statistical and ideological construct and not something that was always present

You are wrong. Psychometric g is always called upon in cognitive tasks.

but had to await Jensen's discovery

Smart guy. Spearman discovered g in 1904. You are quite ignorant of this subject, aren't you?

It is, at best, a statistical artifact. You choose to worship this artifact. I do not.

It is not an artifact. You are further exposing your ignorance. Perhaps you do not understand the word "artifact?" Try a dictionary. Do you understand factor analysis? Well?

My comment regarding Jensen's reservations about psychometric statistics was a reference to Jensen's experience of testing balck children for i.q. and then retesting them after some time spent playing with them and allowing them to achieve a measure of comfort in his presence. Their test results improved by eight to ten points.

So, do you think this is due to learning the test and increasing its s loading, or to errors in the test? Do you think Jensen believes that IQ tests are inaccurate? Try reading Bias in Mental Testing. Jensen always emphasizes that tests must be given correctly and has written a lot about how this is done.

Further, you posted earlier (I think it was you, but it might have been one of the other psychomeretricians) that there is a clear correlation between "g" and academic performance.

The correlation is about .50, but increases as the academic task becomes more complex.

The North Carolina longditudinal study tracks academic performance through college and establishes a clear link between enriched day care, WHICH IS ENVIRONMENTAL, and long-term academic performance.

I don't doubt that. There is plenty of variance available for non-g factors, after g is accounted for. Why are you arguing this? Do you understand variance and correlation? It appears that you do not.

That contradicts your statements about "g" and Jensen's early belief that i.q. differences between "cohorts" are not environmenatlly caused, and that environmental advantages are not long-term in effect.

Wrong. Academic performance is not IQ. Who taught you to write it with lower case and periods?

You seem to know this and then try to hide behind a bunch of professional language and refusal to face the obvious.

I do know the language. Your perception of hiding is probably due to your ignorance of the subject matter.

I am capable of distinguishing between Jensen and the regrettable Jensenists who have been a kind of academic infestation, rather like Social Darwinists.

You don't even seem to understand that, although Jensen is the most outstanding intelligence researcher alive today, there are plenty of other very competent researchers, who understand intelligence and have few differences between them.

Who was supposed to teach you how to spell? Did you attend an intervention program and flunk?

JahSun,

Noting a statistical abberation is not a "blacks are inferior" convention. Don't lose what credibility you have by building an inflammatory straw man. (If you say "my opponent is racist" or imply, "I am an enlightened individual who has stuidied the eastern way" - well that's one way to 'engage' in this line of reasoning - and discourage the discourse you claim to invite). But I don't believe an omniscient referee will rule.

I am not a eugenicist and resent any such implication. Moreover, your appeal to my purported status (the "Miguel" bit) is odious.

But leaving aside these Marquis of Queensbury objections -

If to elevate one is attack all others - by all means lets stop IQ testing... and the Olympics, and other artificial celebrations of specific achievement. ( cannot bear to see another Kenyan win the NY marathon - long distance running must be biased - or why would one small nation dominate? - just kidding) Some on this thread want to keep the argument narrow to avoid spinning into criminal conviction statistics. Its not entirely clear to me who these are relevant to Jews and IQ but...

I've read an abstratct recently that suggests the correlation between race and the death penalty has been misunderstood. The authors assert the real connection is related to the race of the VICTIM. That would suggest that black men, who I presume predominately have black victims would have some pervese advantage (all things being equal, i.e., poor public defenders, previous records, mitigating circumstances).

Legalize drugs or change the sentencing standards of loveable urban crack. Hey, free Mumia for that matter. All immaterial to the question of IQ scores, right?

Happiness and utility are also (like 'intelligence') difficult to measure and discern. Smiling with dysentary is not noble/wise. Early European commenatary referring to natives as childlike and playful, however patronizing and inaccurate, seems close to your point.

You ask, why elevate IQ? I ask you, why elevate grinning in a stone age, tribal/familial, ritualistic culture? Since you do respect scientific achievement, how to you square the western angst and its connection to asking challenging abstract and practical questions with the happy hunter/gatherer concerned with his next meal?

Miguel66,

There are a few posters who continue to chant the "blacks are intellectually inferior" refrain ad nauseum, but perhaps that comment was unfair.

Everyone is prejudiced as far as I can tell. The main difference is that some people try and institutionalize their biases. This field of IQ testing has been used to this end in the past, and many of its proponents appear to be Social Darwinists on some level.

If you found my asking if your Hispanic name indicated that you were Latino to be insulting, I apologize. The vast majority of my Latino friends are quite proud of their heritage, and they do understand racial profiling in law enforcement. You didn't comment upon the statistics I quoted, though. They are pretty hard to dismiss. I've seen the LAPD in action, and I know that if you're white driving a Benz while snorting lines on a pocket mirror, you have a good chance of getting sent home with a vaguely disapproving look. If you are a minority, simply walking down the street is enough to have a spotlight trained on you, and guns aimed at your head.

Nice suit = "Good evening sir, can I see your license and registration."

Basketball Jersey = "Freeze G*D dammit! Keep your hands where I can see them."

All things are not equal Miguel. Pretending like these psychometric tests take all of this into account is insulting to those on the uneven playing field.

I didn't want to debate drug policy here, let alone invoke Mumia or the virtues of crack. (now i'm insulted :-) I agree that happiness is difficult to measure. Foolish grins are not a foolproof indicator. But we can say that suicide rates are statistically relevant, can we not? Check these World Health Organization figures: (it won't take but a few seconds)

<link>

You will notice that the more predominantly "white" nations are the most suicidal. With Russia and the former Soviet Eastern European nations topping the list.

Personally I think "race" is genetically tenuous, and basically useless. It seems as if some would like to say that oppressing people and murdering them for hundreds of years is/was okay because... they're stupid. Some even go further and say that all this genocidal slaughter and slavery was good for the victims because their mean IQ is now higher than that of the, also oppressed and murdered, populations back in Africa. Kidnapping people, treating them as subhumans, forcing them to work for nothing, and depriving them of even the most basic cultural spiritual and economic inheritance was actually doing them a favor... go figure. This is odious.

While the European conquerors of various lands were being condescending and patronizing in their appraisals of various peaceful natives... those natives were happier than Europeans. Read Columbus' own diary where he talks of the Caribe Indians wading out to meet his boats and laying flowers on the waters of the bay bearing fruits and various gifts. Considering that in 1492 the Spaniards were kicking all non Catholics out of Spain, and gifting the Jews and Muslims with hot boiling lead down their throats, I would've been happier with the Caribes.

The major problems of this world have been created by those with high IQs. It is not that science is bad... it is the lack of respect for nature, the avarice, and the lack of empathy that such people have displayed. Our whacked priorities have driven us to create WMDs and toxic waste dumps. For every Salk with a cure for Polio, we invent 100 new and deadlier pathogens. Abuse of anti-biotics, genetically modifying food-stock to die after a single harvest... there is a sickness in the western psyche that has no parallel in indigenous populations. You can laugh at them and say that they don't do well on tests that you have invented and delivered to them in languages that are often not their primary tongues. (please don't tell me that these tests have been translated perfectly into every one of the over 4,000 African dialects spoken at this moment) But none of them would have brought the world to the edge of nuclear war. None of them would conceive of putting a trash island in the Pacific 2x larger than the state of Texas. The wisest among them wouldn't even deign to participate in such examinations. Would you if you were them? I hang up on telemarketers!

If you're content to be unhappy, fine. But being unhappy and trying to force the happy people to be unhappy too, is just wrong.