Aha! Many Jews have accents and speech patterns that come off less refined and elegant than the thoughts and ideas they want to express. This must correlate to intelligence!
Why is it an obstacle? Can education not correlate with intelligence, whether or not we can measure it?
I conclude it from these two assumptions:
-Assume A is, on average, more educated than B.
-Assume that education correlates positively with intelligence
No problem with me
Lets say we have a contest to see who can name most american states. We both go looking for a person to do the contest. I look for a person who knows a lot of american states. You look for a person who can exercise his lungs very well.
I guess what my point is that what decides this contest is the persons mental ability, not any physical abilities. (Except in extreme cases)
I am not claiming to have any experience in the area. And I’m sure you are right in your claim that it is an intellectually demanding task. But it also requires physical abilities, to a degree that those abilities are important in the outcome.
Nope.
There may be a correlation if all else is equal, (which it never is), but according to that construct, some dumb cluck who got into college in 1910 because his father attended was necessarily “smarter” than a really brilliant person who was prohibited by culture and a lack of money from going to school.
It also means, (if you are considering “education” to mean attending school as our society knows it) that Dan Quayle is smarter than Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
But to the extent that we are measuring “intelligence,” it does require intelligence and it cannot be left off a list of tasks requiring intelligence. A good (but feeble) stalker might simply accompany a much more physically able hunter or group of hunters. That does not diminish the intelligence required of the stalker.
So you are denying that education correlates with intelligence. Not that it is necessary for us to be able to measure intelligence before education could possible correlate with intelligence.
I am not making this distinction to be annoying, you just jumped into a different discussion.
Anyway, you are attacking my assumption that “intelligence” correlates with education. Which of course you would given your position on the professor vs random person question.
Of course I am denying that. Do you think that Dan Quayle is more intelligent that Aristotle?
Education is simply one form of training. It has nothing to do with intellectual abilities and people with really good abilities may be denied education for any number of reasons.
I wasnt actually trying to measure “intelligence”. I was just trying to argue that there is such a thing.
And I don’t see why we should allow tasks which require a lot of physical ability also. What if there are so many tasks in the bag that require physical ability, that the professor loses, even though he actually is better in mental abilities? As I see it, it only serves to obscure the conclusions.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Of course I am denying that. Do you think that Dan Quayle is more intelligent that Aristotle?
[QUOTE]
This is not really a very good argument against correlation, if it is an argument at all…
Now you are mentioning “good abilities”, it seemingly even would be “good intellectual abilities”. So you think that there is such a thing?
let me try that again:
This is not really a very good argument against correlation, if it is an argument at all…
Now you are mentioning “good abilities”, it seemingly even would be “good intellectual abilities”. So you think that there is such a thing?
If you can’t measure intelligence, how do you know there’s a correlation at all? You’re just assuming one exists.
I’ll stipulate that intellectual abilities exist, but I submit that any attempt to unify “intellect” under some overarching Unified Theory of Smartness is an exercise in futility.
OK:
Education is simply one form of training. It has nothing to do with intellectual abilities and people with really good intellectual abilities may be denied education for any number of reasons.
(I was not deliberately changing the meaning, simply omitting what I figured was understood.)
I do not deny that there is some quality called intelligence.
I do not deny that we can find various individuals who, when matched against each other, will demonstrate that one or the other is, overall, more intelligent than the other.
What I deny is that there is any objective “g” value that can be accurately measured for all human beings that identifies a single “intelligence” value. Given that I deny that we can find a single value that we can measure for all human beings, it follows that I deny that we can measure a single value for groups.
It is probably a true statement that Leonardo da Vinci was “smarter” in nearly every (possibly every) category that we would measure for intelligence than a person who suffered a birth trauma involving severe oxygen deprivation for more than a couple of minutes.
Once we move away from such extreme examples, the nature of “intelligence” and how we measure it becomes a much argued over phenomenon. Who is “smarter,” the architect who can plan the construction of an elaborate tower or the artist who can conceive of a new mode of expressing life’s emotions? How do you judge between Bach and Wright? Who is smarter, the general who can plan and execute an entire war or the tinkerer who adds one or two key inventions that revolutionize the way the world operates? Is Shockley (transistor) really “smarter” than Dewey (library catalogues) or the other way around? How many novels or symphonies did either of them write? Which of them wrote a philosophical tract in the manner of Wittgenstein or Kant or Descartes?
Education has “nothing to do with intellectual abilities”?? — do you have a cite for that assertion? Because, quite honestly, IQ results (the “intelligence” being debated) predict for, and correlate with, academic success to a pretty significant degree. And those results correlate, to a significant degree, with genetic similarities.
Hey, I know this is not a politically correct topic, and I tend to turn my head on topics like these (it is what it is), but come on guy, intelligence has no connection with education? That’s “PC gone Wild” 
Chicken Biscuit, what is intelligence?
From Wikipedia.
Now you tell me why IQ results don’t provide the best indicator, or at least one of the very best indicators of school room sucess available. My bet is that you can’t. Why? Because there aren’t any.
In short, IQ results have their legitimate role … whether that’s politically agreeable or isn’t …
And staying with Wikipedia … after looking around at related topics, Wikipedia seems to have a pretty even handed treatment of what IQ might be… as far as I can tell. Wiki covers the use of IQ results, support for the concept, latest research, correlations, and challenges to the concept. Good source IMHO –
You are reading it backwards. Intelligence helps determine how well one can learn, but learning does not increase intelligence.* A more educated person is not ipso facto “smarter” than a less well educated person if we identify intelligence as an inherent ability.
mr. jp was asserting that a group that was better educated could be considered more intelligent. I deny that claim. A better educated person or group may have more developed skills (in the fields in which they have been educated), but the raw ability is not from education, which is the application of training to intelligence.
*(Of course, there is the factoid that IQ scores tend to be lower at the end of summer vacvation than they are at the end of a school year, which I would say indicates that IQ tests merely measure education, not intelligence, but I suspect that you will find few psychometric adherents willing to claim that education leads to intelligence rather than the other way around.)
It’s hard for me to disagree with you here. There just aren’t very many good indicators of intelligence. I agree with Stephen Jay Gould’s analysis of IQ–which is that the concept has its roots in racism and that I don’t think intelligence can be reduced to a single statistic.
You’re right–the IQ wiki is pretty good.
No, that would follow only if IQ results were influenced only by genetics or only by environment. No one in the mainstream holds that position as far as I can tell. Considering IQ results appear to be dependent on both ones environment and one’s genetics, it’s would seem reasonable that environment (school or no school) would have an influence on IQ results (at an early age). Later IQ results, as one is mostly free to pick his or her own interests as they get older, IQ results appear to be mostly a result of genetics. That said, IQ result is one of the best indicators of academic success - no doubt.
Suggesting that it best measures qualifications for academia, rather than “g”.
At any rate, if IQ tests predict educational success, that does nothing to establish that education represents intelligence which is the point to which you reacted.