You cannot train or teach people in any mechanical or “linear” fashion to succeed on IQ tests. IQ tests don’t work like that. Some brains are hardwired to recognize complex patterns and some brains are not. This ability to notice patterns is EVERY BIT AS ORGANIC as the other attributes you have mentioned such as creativity and artistry.
Scientists have already concluded that you can’t substantially change your IQ through any regimental training. The “robotic” nature of educational systems does not affect a persons IQ.
What in the world are you talking about?
No, what it shows is that you have a prejudice of some type against IQ aptitude. It’s fine to discount it because you don’t find it valuable but it’s misleading to relabel it as “rote learning”. IQ aptitude is organic whether you like it or not.
And by writing that you imply that you are just making definitions up. You might as well use “refrigerator”: “by ‘refrigerator’ I mean linearity”. Rote learning and being able to recognize patterns are at the opposite end of the spectrum. One may have an aptitude for one or the other. The former is a specialized skill, that has little bearing on anything else. The latter shows one’s ability to reason through problems.
Ruminator puts it well. It would do you well to periwinkle him. (And by “periwinkle”, I of course mean “listen to”. ;))
High intelligence is necessary, but not sufficient, to function at a high level for tasks which require the capacity to absorb data, analyze it, and resolve problems.
IQ tests do not perfectly correlate with intelligence, and of course there are always outliers. Nor do they measure many other qualities which might be of value for a particular function or job.
I have observed that folks who disparage standardized testing as meaningless are nevertheless inclined to opt out of having low-scoring individuals pilot their airplanes…at some point it’s pretty obvious that while it’s easy to ridicule IQ tests (or any other standardized tests), when the rubber meets the road those sorts of academic criticisms fall away and we’d like high performance on standardized tests to be the entry point for broader qualification evaluations.
SNP analysis proves race? Bullshot. SNP analysis proves that SNPs (an interesting component of human genetic variation) can be measured on a geographic gradient for world-wide rural populations (rural areas are isolated, long established, they have “trivial” foreign genetic input, etc; this is not true for urban areas). They use this work to map out the genetic relations of various neighbouring (or nomadic) populations (please look up the definition of that word, “race” is not a population!)
I hate it that a dedicated group of “race realists” (an internet sub-culture of semi-educated skin-heads, racialists, white power groups, anti-immigrationists, segregationists, and general anti-blacks) continue to confuse people and try to interpret the work of cutting edge scientists to further their goal of reviving “classical race theory.”
Instead of quoting a friggin blog dedicated to “race realists.” Why don’t you quote the actual scientists conducting this research?.. Oh wait. That’s because every-goddamn-one of them has spoken out against the “race realists” (what a friggin name) for their habitually warped and blatantly false interpretations of their genetic work.
This doesn’t stop them! They have an agenda. This agenda is to promote the outdated concept of genetic races for humans and the side agenda is to use this to prove the genetic mental inferiority of “the blacks.”
Although I agree that populations do nothing to support the concept of biological races–actually providing arguments against it, I am not sure where this particular rant originated. Was this a generalized lament against the politics behind supporters of “biological race” or was it aimed at a particular post? (And is there a reason that you seemed to label gnxp.com a “race realist” site? I did not see anything overt on the pages over which I glanced.)
(referring to a comment that there are plenty of studies which show a lower IQ for blacks as a group)
Actually, I can’t recall a major study to the contrary…do a search on black-white IQ and see what you come up with.
As far as I know, every recognized large-scale measurement shows a gap between the group self-described as black and self-described as white. Every large-scale measurement of standardized test scores at a high-school level or above shows the same gap.
There are arguments around whether the tests are any good; whether the participants had equal nurture; whether the gap is narrowing; and so on–but basically any study I’ve ever seen shows a gap and always shows the same order. When asians are included they usually outperform whites.
Chapter 13 of the Bell Curve, “Ethnic Differences in Cognitive Ability” has a number of citations you might be interested in perusing, as well as a discussion of some of the complexities.
My first husband was Black and smart as hell (and sneaky and evil too). My daughter by him is also really smart. My second husband was white and dumb as dirt, and I hate to say anything bad about my boy by him but he wasnt potty trained until he was 4 and he still cant read or count past 29.
I guess you’re trying to tell us that being white doesn’t mean that you’re smarter than all black people? Do you think anyone here doesn’t already know that?
I once knew someone who smoked his entire adult life and lived to be 90 and never got any form of cancer. I know several people that died from cancer and never smoked. Guess what this proves?
I’m trying to say that black people can be smarter than white people and that people get their smarts from their parents, so if you have dumb black parents you will probably be a dumb black person but if you have smart black parents you will be smart.
The secret to happiness is often said to be good health and poor memory.
The people who raise the sort of racial IQ differences are mostly trying to explain the socioeconomic gap between blacks and whites without admitting that some significant portion of that gap is due to current and past racism.
My experience has been that their stance is frequently in response to affirmative action. Most of the ones on this board seem to agree that the variance among individuals is high enough that you couldn’t really predict IQ based on race. But when you wonder why blacks (as a whole) have not achieved the same sort of socioeconomic advance as minority immigrant groups that came after them…
That’s not to say that individual black men and women aren’t extremely smart or that individual Asians aren’t extremely stupid. In fact you can’t make predictions about IQ based on race any more than you can base swimming speed on hair color (but I bet the average swim speed of some hair colors are significantly lower than the swim speed of the fastest hair color).
And people have said that the average black person (replace the word person with the word parent if it makes more sense to you) scores 1 standard deviation lower than the average white person (once again replace with the word parent if it makes more sense to you).
My understanding of genetics – and perhaps someone can correct me if I’m wrong – is that genetic drift tends always to the middle. That is, if you have two unusually smart parents, the tendency will be to have a child not quite as bright as the parents, while two unusually stupid parents will tend to have a child not quite as dense as the parents.
Easy to see the dark side is not. Try harder, you must.
Shouldn’t the clue have been when used the word “true”? I mean really, that’s a good keyword that the statement following will be conflated, made up, or, um, something. As in, you know, no no no, not that intellect, I mean the true intellect - the real one that I know about which you’ve been led to believe isn’t there.
No. Genetic drift, as the word drift implies, isn’t normative. It’s just there. And it’s just randomly different from the parent genes. Genetic drift can be beneficial, neutral even detrimental; it certainly doesn’t try normalize anything. It just happens, randomly. Within a population.
I’d say it was aimed at athelas then grew into a generalized rant at the modern-day sub-culture of internet racialists.
My reasons to a label gnxp a “race realist” site needs not to go any further then their own self descriptive stance on biology/race/genetics. This exact phase (and many variations) is used so many times that I can’t even quote them (many times they are in passing reference to themselves, the website, or buried within deep philosophic praise of other prominent racialists (like Steve Sailer). You will quickly find that in this sub-culture (of which gnxp is only just one website -but it’s one of the oldest) there is a constant theme of race, libertarianism, paranoiac claims of grand collusions (scientific/political), self congratulations for perceived intellect, constant praise for an internet personality named Steve Sailer, blacks/crime/wealth, supremacy of IQ tests which can test for everything from health to intelligence, and many more odd things…
If you want you can peruse this search of their site (using the words “race realism”). I would give you a few of the other sites in this sub-culture but you can find a few of them yourself by looking at the links that are listed on the side of any gnxp page labeled “Close Blogs.”