# Hi Ianzin **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 7, 2006, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721 "2006-04-07T14:37:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/21 "2006-04-08T09:54:23Z")
Sorry, **Seven** , you’ve confused me a little. It’s very late, I worked a lot on Friday and I’m in the middle of some navel-gazing. It’s funny, yes. Let me know if I’m responding to what you meant to say. If **lskinner** misunderstood my post, which I could have worded a little better, the “get fucked” doesn’t apply. But I think I’ve been consistent in saying that people don’t need to cite their own opinions. Cites are for assertions of fact. Lately, I keep seeing people asked to cite what’s obviously their interpretation of something, and it’s kinda stupid. Cite requests aren’t filibusters. ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/22 "2006-04-08T15:19:22Z")
> [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > Not every statement needs to be backed up by a frickin’ cite. A lot of the debate with IQ testing is speculation. Deal with it. If your opinion is completely contradicted by the views of mainstream researchers, then you better come up with a cite or present a convincing argument why those researchers are wrong or you are an ignorant fool. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/23 "2006-04-08T15:20:25Z")
> [@lskinner](#): > > In another thread, you said: > > “The only thing that any so-called IQ test can measure is someone’s ability, on that one occasion, to get a score on that particular IQ test.” > > and > > “Does scoring well on an IQ test correlate to anything that is useful and seems like intelligent behaviour in real life? No.” > > I asked “Cite?” and you didn’t respond. Would you please tell me what reputable source gave you this information? Let’s get beyond your petty fight with Ianzin. The fact of the matter is that IQ tests do measure one type of intelligence, and measure it reasonably well and that is "academic intelligence’ [Cite: IQ Scores: IQ Score Interpretation](http://www.audiblox.com/iq_scores.htm) In the context of the western developed world this type of intelligence correlates strongly with success in a variety of professional fields ([cite)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ) that rely on being able to process and analyze abstract information. Getting beyond this fairly narrow cultural envelope IQ tests are much less useful, and in some contexts virtually worthless as measures of how effective someone is at surviving in, or exploiting their environment. At that point the question is less how do we measure innate intelligence and more one of determining what operational “intelligence” is in a specific cultural and environmental context. If we can’t answer the last question in a comprehensive and quantifiable way then we certainly aren’t in any position to accurately test for it. ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/24 "2006-04-08T15:23:35Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > Seems to me to address your point, this from my last quote, and there is a good deal more. That’s the best you can do? "A high IQ score, however, did not predict success as well " is just a leeetle bit different from “Does scoring well on an IQ test correlate to anything that is useful and seems like intelligent behaviour in real life? No.” Are you as much of an ignorant fool as ianzin? ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/25 "2006-04-08T15:39:36Z")
> [@lskinner](#): > > That’s the best you can do? > > "A high IQ score, however, did not predict success as well " is just a leeetle bit different from “Does scoring well on an IQ test correlate to anything that is useful and seems like intelligent behaviour in real life? No.” > > Are you as much of an ignorant fool as ianzin? Are you a medicated individual? Because your gratuitous personal shit spraying is getting kind of repetitive at this point. At least when the hippo sprays few gallons of liquid shit into the river he’s making a point. Your poo flinging is falling the [Potamus Test.](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhippo.html) > [@](#): > > Hippos defecate copious amounts into the rivers and ponds in which they wallow all day and also partake of a charming ritual described by hippo experts as “dung showering.” They blow crap mixed with urine all over the place to humiliate their hippo rivals and inferiors and mark the territory around their watering hole, swishing their little tails to be sure to get plenty of coverage at nose level . ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/26 "2006-04-08T15:44:58Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Are you a medicated individual? Because your gratuitous personal shit spraying is getting kind of repetitive at this point. At least when the hippo sprays few gallons of liquid shit into the river he’s making a point. Your poo flinging is falling the [Potamus Test.](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhippo.html) > > . Let him who is without ignorance take the first shit. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/27 "2006-04-08T16:06:46Z")
> [@lskinner](#): > > Let him who is without ignorance take the first shit. Howzabout you respond to the numerous cites and arguments that have been presented in this thread instead of making snarky comments which reveal nothing beyond how little you actually know about the subject? In this thread and in the two in GQ you’ve done nothing beyond waving around your link and shouting “Look! A bunch of guys signed something that vaguely agrees with my position!” When the historical context of that document was explained, you ignored it. When the various problems with IQ as a measurement of innate intelligence were brought up, you shouted “Is not!” Now a somewhat detailed explanation of the situation is given to you by **casdave** and **Oy!** and **astro** , and you refuse to discuss their points. If you’re really dedicated to convincing people that their views about IQ are false and founded only on “political correctness” then you’re going to have to actually, y’know, _convince_ people. You won’t be doing that by calling them ignorant and ignoring the points they make. You’re going to have to actually demonstrate how and why what they’re saying is wrong. Is that too difficult for you? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/28 "2006-04-08T16:25:33Z")
> [@](#): > > If your opinion is completely contradicted by the views of mainstream researchers,. . . Ahh! Here, again, we have the false appeal to authority when the authority is not substantiated, but is simply assigned the adjective “mainstream” without a citation that the claimed authority is real. Poor **ianzin** is taking heat for having tried to expound on the point I had thrown out as a quick rejoinder to a grandiose claim by **lskinner**. Shortly after The Bell Curve was published (carefully avoiding peer review–or even pre-publication popular review), there was a serious negative reaction from a lot of people who recognized that its second half was merely a polemic. Many of these people condemned the book as pseudoscience, and several of the more vitriolic opponents condemned all psychometric science as fraudulent. In response, a bunch of guys whose livelihoods depended on funding for psychometric research got together and posted a letter in the _Wall Street Journal_ issuing a general defense of their field. Unfortunately, in order to find 52 guys who would sign the letter, the people collecting signatures were willing to accept signatures from people such as the racist kook, J. Philippe Rushton, as well as the signatures of a number of ancient and retired psychometrists with no current experience in the field. So this letter, that was intended to present a _general_ defense of the concept of psychometrics, has since been grabbed by any number of people who looked no further than “ooo! Scientists!” and put forth to defend any and all psychometric claims, even specific ones, as real. (Oddly enough–or, perhaps, not so oddly, given its publication in connection with The Bell Curve, the people who most frequently wave this letter as “proof” that IQ is a valuable world-wide measure of something or another tend to use it in the context of demonstrating that some “races” are smarter than others. On the other hand, no one has yet gone back to interview the 52 “experts” (several of whom were clearly not “mainstream”) to discover how many of them would continue to support The Bell Curve now that it has actually received peer review (which showed it up as the fallacious nonsense it is). Beyond that, we have no evidence that any of the 52 signatories (aside from, one presumes, Rushton, and perhaps Arthur R. Jensen) would actually support the claims made for cross-cultural IQ tests–particularly tests that are so obviuosly flawed that they assigned values below 80 (and even below 60) to entire nations in Africa. Unfortunately, I had not returned to that thread, so I was unaware that **lskinner** actually made an open appeal to the fallacy of _Ad Verecundiam_, (Appeal to Authority) regarding the letter. ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/29 "2006-04-08T17:01:14Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Ahh! Here, again, we have the false appeal to authority when the authority is not substantiated, but is simply assigned the adjective “mainstream” without a citation that the claimed authority is real. Do you deny that the dozens of people who signed that statement are prominent researchers? > [@](#): > > In response, a bunch of guys whose livelihoods depended on funding for psychometric research got together and posted a letter in the _Wall Street Journal_ issuing a general defense of their field. Apparently you do not. > [@](#): > > the racist kook, J. Philippe Rushton, Cite? > [@](#): > > So this letter, that was intended to present a _general_ defense of the concept of psychometrics, has since been grabbed by any number of people who looked no further than “ooo! Scientists!” and put forth to defend any and all psychometric claims, even specific ones, as real. The statement says: > [@](#): > > IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance. Do you disagree with this? ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/30 "2006-04-08T17:17:24Z")
Re Rushton[Wiki actually has pretty good overview](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton) of his positions and academic critques of same (esp regarding his methodology) , a number of which are referenced at the end. > [@](#): > > Rushton’s theory is based on an attempt to extend the r/K selection theory to humans. He explains the patterns in the table by arguing that while all humans display extremely K-selected behavior, the races vary in the degree to which they exhibit that behavior. He argues that Negroids use a strategy more toward an r-selected strategy (produce more offspring, but provide less care for them) while Mongoloids use the K strategy most (produce fewer offspring but provide more care for them), with Caucasoids exhibiting intermediate tendencies in this area. He argues that Caucasoids evolved more toward a K-selected breeding strategy than Negroids because of the harsher and colder weather encountered in Europe, while the same held true to a greater extent for Mongoloids. > > Rushton’s work is prominent in race and intelligence research, but his r/K selection theory is the subject of much more criticism and accusations than found even in this controversial field. For example, in a 1996 review of the book, anthropologist C. Loring Brace wrote that “Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of ‘racialism’” (Brace 1996). Brace argues that Rushton assumes the existence of three biological races with no evidence except Rushton’s speculation as to what an extraterrestrial visitor to Earth would think. Since Brace’s criticism, genetics studies have identified possible genetic differences between the racial groups under question (Tang et al. 2005)². Brace also disagrees with Rushton applying the concept of heritability (normally applied in the context of individuals) to groups. Finally, Brace claims Rushton makes unsupported claims about sub-Saharan African societies ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/31 "2006-04-08T17:41:41Z")
> [@lskinner](#): > > Do you deny that the dozens of people who signed that statement are prominent researchers? I deny that all 52 signers are prominent researchers. Some of the 52 are (or were); some were not. They were clearly not all “mainstream” researchers. (Run the list and see how many are cross cited by other researchers.) > [@](#): > > The statement says: > > > [@](#): > > > > IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance. > > Do you disagree with this? The statement is vague enough to be true–but not specific enough to be true. I would agree that the psychometric advocates have accumulated enough data to demonstrate a loose correlation between IQ scores and material or academic success in societies that are highly dependant on literacy. They have not shown any similar correlation (and no causation, at all) for the success of persons in societies that are not dependant on literacy. There are even problems with their claim for “modest but consistent” claims in literacy-based societies, in that it is easier to accumulate crime statistics for muggers than for embezzlers, so a trend that associates low IQ with high criminality may simply be a cultural reinforcement of whom we judge to be stupid and criminal. After these claims have been qualified to the point where they are beginning to lose their relevance in a high literacy country such as the U.S., we then find people trying to export those tests to countries where the culture, the rate of literacy, and the measures of success may be entirely different and then trying to assign the same scores to both countries–a marvelous abuse of numerology, not science. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/32 "2006-04-08T18:00:40Z")
**lskinner** So far, all you have done is simply poo-poo any points that have been made, without advancing any of your own. Opening a pit thread about **Ianzin** ’s opinion is very lame indeed, especially given that as yet you have not provided any evidence to refute his statement. You are fast to demand cites, yet provide none to bolster your own position, if you wish to discredit or rebut the postion taken by another person, then, along with requiring cites from the other party, it is also good practice to provide your own, and also make salient points from those cites, with analysis. So far you have done nothing, you simply put in a couple of short statements, which implies to me that either you are a shit stirrer, or just intellectually lazy. You could always change this view, by making some effort to put your views into perspective, as yet you haven’t actually done this, you have not yet stated that IQ tests are either good or bad, accurrate or otherwise, nor have you explaned away the inherant weakness of relying on the IQ test as an assessment of an individual, or its uselessness in predicting future performance of test subjects. > [@](#): > > "A high IQ score, however, did not predict success as well " Perhaps you are not familiar with academe and its very conservative and guarded manner when it makes refutations. There are reasons why this is done, it seems you do not understand these, but that quote in terms of academic endeavor is quite a strong one, because what it means is even when correlated with school performance year later, the IQ test does not work, even when it comes to predicting life performance. In laymans terms, it is irrelevant to real life. I would perhaps like you present some independant quote from someone who has made behavioural and phsychological assessments, weighted these against cultural and income related factors, and compared the outcome against the IQ tests performed on the test subjects. If you can show how IQ tests have performs better in predicting outcomes, than such pychological and behavioural profiling, I would be most interested, and my position would change to align with yours. This is a challenge to you, are you up to it ? or are we going to continue with name calling, naysaying and denial, the choice is yours. Perhaps with reasoned argument, you might even fight ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/33 "2006-04-09T04:35:39Z")
> [@lskinner](#): > > "A high IQ score, however, did not predict success as well " is just a leeetle bit different from “Does scoring well on an IQ test correlate to anything that is useful and seems like intelligent behaviour in real life? No.” Cite? > [@](#): > > Are you as much of an ignorant fool as ianzin? In other words, **ianzin** ’s statements contradict your preconceived notions about what is politically correct so you feel obligated to lash out at **ianzin** instead of actually defending your argument. ---
**Author:** ![Sublight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Sublight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sublight)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/34 "2006-04-09T05:42:59Z")
**lskinner** , if you’re interested, I’m going to make a good-faith recommendation that you check out Stephen Jay Gould’s _The Mismeasure of Man_. It looks at precisely the topic you bring up in your OP, and it has as many citations as you could want. ---
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/35 "2006-04-09T10:45:10Z")
In the unlikely event that anyone cares or wants to know, I _have_ now replied to our friend **lskinner**. [Here’s the thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=365996&page=1&pp=50) that started all this (I’ve still no idea why **lskinner** felt inclined to spawn a Pit Thread about it), and [here’s a link that goes straight to my reply.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7278493&postcount=61) Not that this will achieve anything. Thanks to everyone else who has chimed in, I’ve learned quite a bit. ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/36 "2006-04-09T13:30:20Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Howzabout you respond to the numerous cites and arguments that have been presented in this thread Which ones? I’ve been shown a few cites that don’t support the person’s claim and a few arguments that are pretty darn lame. But if I missed some jewel, howzabout you point it out? Or are you another ignorant fool who won’t back up his claims? ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/37 "2006-04-09T13:31:42Z")
> [@Sublight](#): > > **lskinner** , if you’re interested, I’m going to make a good-faith recommendation that you check out Stephen Jay Gould’s _The Mismeasure of Man_. It looks at precisely the topic you bring up in your OP, and it has as many citations as you could want. I actually read it twice. I don’t remember seeing a study in the book that indicates no corellation between IQ and anything else in life. ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/38 "2006-04-09T13:35:24Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Cite? You gotta be kidding me. The two statements are obviously different from eachother. > [@](#): > > A high IQ score, however, did not predict success as well > [@](#): > > Does scoring well on an IQ test correlate to anything that is useful and seems like intelligent behaviour in real life? No. If you need a cite to see that these two statements don’t mean the same thing, then you are the most ignorant fool I’ve ever met. > [@](#): > > In other words, **ianzin** ’s statements contradict your preconceived notions about what is politically correct ianzin’s statement contradicts a statement signed by dozens of prominent researchers. I am simply asking him for a cite. ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/39 "2006-04-09T13:38:49Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > **lskinner** > > Opening a pit thread about **Ianzin** ’s opinion is very lame indeed, especially given that as yet you have not provided any evidence to refute his statement. > > You are fast to demand cites, yet provide none to bolster your own position, Are you kidding? Here’s a cite for you: > [@](#): > > IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance. [http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj\_main.html](http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html) ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721/40 "2006-04-09T13:41:08Z")
> [@](#): > > I would agree that the psychometric advocates have accumulated enough data to demonstrate a loose correlation between IQ scores and material or academic success in societies that are highly dependant on literacy. Then certainly you would agree that the following statement is incorrect: “Does scoring well on an IQ test correlate to anything that is useful and seems like intelligent behaviour in real life? No.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hi-ianzin/351721.md?page=3)