Thinking About Race and IQ (Murray book, "Facing Reality")

[Kamaji]

As a  point of order, that is most certainly NOT a Conservative construct.

I agree that it should not be, because, to my thinking, a conservative focuses, in the words of Dr. King, Jr., on the content of a person's character, not on the color of that person's skin.

But there is theory, and there is reality.  And in reality, it seems that far too many who espouse conservative opinions on many subjects, nonetheless continue to embrace the tired canard that skin color dictates intelligence and moral worth.

If I paint too broadly, and some feel ill-used by me, I apologize to them.

To be quite honest, even if one grants Dr. Murray that he is trying to act in good faith, what he puts forward cannot reliably and sufficiently distinguish between genes and culture.  I don't think that it takes a genius to see that there are differences in educational and professional achievement that correlate with skin color in this day and age, and that those differences have been with us for a long, long time (although they have remarkably ameliorated in the last 60 years).  But I also don't think it takes a genius to see that black culture today (and beginning from the 1960s, just as blacks were being freed from the limits and metaphorical chains of legal racial segregation) - particularly as promoted by hustlers and liberals as being the only "authentic" black experience - is the single most salient factor in keeping far too many blacks down. 

Change the culture, change the person.

For comparison's sake, look at the refugees who came here from Vietnam and Laos in the 1970s, when the hot flares of anti-asian sentiment ignited by WWII were still smoldering, did for themselves.  They arrived in equally disadvantageous economic and social positions and inner city blacks live in today, and yet, despite the anti-asian sentiment, despite being dirt-poor and having nothing, they built themselves up.  And the determining factor in my view?  Culture.  They brought with them a culture, a set of values, and an attitude toward learning, hard work, and self-abnegation that has been ruthlessly stripped from the black community, primarily by white liberals.

If Dr. Murray and his supporters want to make their case, then fine, I'm on board with science.  But let it be real science, not lazy statistical speculation that cannot adequately address, or account for, the factor of culture.  Collect DNA samples and life histories from a substantial sample size - tens of thousands at least - and then (a) identify those genes that clearly and unmistakably code for, or significantly influence, intelligence, and (b) demonstrate that those genes are consistently absent from, or only present in impaired versions within, the black community.

To be quite honest, task (a) above is going to be hard enough.  But without understanding what complement of genes code for, or significantly affect, intelligence (whatever that may be), everything else is just speculation - or worse, prejudice - hiding behind statistical shenanigans.

[Smokin Joe]

Segregation did not necessarily preclude success. That depended on where you were and the culture around you.

As a child I knew successful black businessmen and tradesmen in our rural community who were well known and respected members of the community, respected by both blacks and whites. But those were days when black children went to school, taught by black teachers and Principals who would discipline those children. When we were integrated into the "black" school (1960s), it was the white kids who caught hell for being unruly, the black kids were well behaved--and THE ticket to prosperity was seen as an education, both by parents and students alike. Those I knew who saw no other way forward beyond high school were contemplating joining the Service so they could go to college on the GI Bill when they got out--white and black, alike. Others were learning trades, but the focus was on a home with a wife and husband and the (statistically) ordinary 2.4 kids. (If you framed tobacco, you might double or triple that number--it's labor intensive)

So, what happened to shut that down? Race riots didn't help, incited by paid agitators from Washington, D.C. (the High School was 25 miles south of there). One of the students was hauled off by the FBI for activities having to do with the destruction in Cambridge, MD, running with H. Rap Brown, Stokeley Carmichael, and Eldridge Cleaver. The resulting riots derailed much of those ambitions, as acquiring an education in that school was virtually impossible during the years of unrest. That affected whites and blacks (50/50 student body), and only those who could afford an out (after school or private classes, or private school) or who lived across the line in another gerrymandered school district did well. Lifelong black friends, rather than end up with us both in the no man's land of that conflict, simply said "I can't know you, not here, and you can't know me". White teachers and administrators did not DARE to discipline black students, and with a lack of disciplinary influence, the place became like something out of Lord of the Flies, at least until the MD State Police started walking the halls with K-9 dogs, with all but two entrances to a 1200 student school chained and locked shut.
(Thankfully, I got to finish my High School education at a private school, at a cost only about 5% of what it costs to go there now).
In the meantime, LBJ's great society was busy setting up to subsidize failure, and a little known fact was that in order for a woman to be eligible for welfare to feed the kids, daddy could not live at home. That did more to lay the groundwork for the current malaise that afflicts a significant (now multi-cultural, multigenerational) demographic than anything I can think of: It broke the nuclear family, and with it, eventually broke the idea of a home with Mother, Father, and children in some circles. Given the choice of being homeless, unemployed, and facing high rents, what's an urban mother to do? Rural whites still (although not as much as then) refuse to go on 'relief', although that barrier has broken down over time, as has the cultural resistance to having children out of wedlock. That is a statistic that has risen across the board, despite readily available contraceptives. 
(The slumlords are the ones who really made out on that deal--"subsidized housing"). Rural life was more forgiving in that almost everyone could find work they needed done to help out and preserve dignity at the same time.

But we have been paying to promote failure, and like I said, it isn't confined to blacks.

I'm not judging anyone on the basis of appearance. I know some people do that, I have seen it. My wife, and family on her side are Chippewa (not 'res', but tribal members), and I  have seen subtle (commonly bureaucratic nonsense) allusions to the ability of native children to learn. I have found them very capable, but a school system that can barely teach whites and has a 24% drop out rate kicks them to the curb (along with anyone else, I don't believe it is just a racial thing) the second they have problems with a subject, and that has become even worse while teachers hide behind COVID.

I have seen students who embrace conservative concepts get scuttled by the liberals in the school systems and it makes my blood boil. Long ago, in Puddin'head Wilson Mark Twain took on the argument between nature and nurture being the determinant. The argument existed before that. We still haven't resolved it.

The Darwinian mindset blamed nature, and promptly used that theory to subjugate and exploit whomever it could, claiming the genetic high ground on the basis of technology it borrowed from the orientals (gunpowder) and developed further.
Others have postulated nurture, blaming this clan or that, or their belief system (protestant v Catholic), there is always some exploitable divide by which those in power can manipulate those who are not, and keep it that way.

In reality, we will never know. If a genetic marker for intelligence (raw intellectual capability) was found, than the outcry of "racism" would drown out any science involved. But without the cultural affirmation or some abnormal innate desire simply to learn, or other incentives, even those with potential genius would not be successful.

Culture (nurture) and quite possibly nature (raw, genetic ability) go hand in hand to develop any person, regardless of color.

So how about we just quit playing games and allow each to rise on their own merits?

If anything I have said makes you believe I'm a racist, well, you're wrong. I live where I live, partly because when I got here, you were seen as standing as tall as your deeds, as reliable as your word. Those are things I live by, and I don't need to put anyone else down when I can stand tall enough on my own.

[Kamaji]

Segregation did not necessarily preclude success. That depended on where you were and the culture around you.

As a child I knew successful black businessmen and tradesmen in our rural community who were well known and respected members of the community, respected by both blacks and whites. But those were days when black children went to school, taught by black teachers and Principals who would discipline those children. When we were integrated into the "black" school (1960s), it was the white kids who caught hell for being unruly, the black kids were well behaved--and THE ticket to prosperity was seen as an education, both by parents and students alike. Those I knew who saw no other way forward beyond high school were contemplating joining the Service so they could go to college on the GI Bill when they got out--white and black, alike. Others were learning trades, but the focus was on a home with a wife and husband and the (statistically) ordinary 2.4 kids. (If you framed tobacco, you might double or triple that number--it's labor intensive)

So, what happened to shut that down? Race riots didn't help, incited by paid agitators from Washington, D.C. (the High School was 25 miles south of there). One of the students was hauled off by the FBI for activities having to do with the destruction in Cambridge, MD, running with H. Rap Brown, Stokeley Carmichael, and Eldridge Cleaver. The resulting riots derailed much of those ambitions, as acquiring an education in that school was virtually impossible during the years of unrest. That affected whites and blacks (50/50 student body), and only those who could afford an out (after school or private classes, or private school) or who lived across the line in another gerrymandered school district did well. Lifelong black friends, rather than end up with us both in the no man's land of that conflict, simply said "I can't know you, not here, and you can't know me". White teachers and administrators did not DARE to discipline black students, and with a lack of disciplinary influence, the place became like something out of Lord of the Flies, at least until the MD State Police started walking the halls with K-9 dogs, with all but two entrances to a 1200 student school chained and locked shut.
(Thankfully, I got to finish my High School education at a private school, at a cost only about 5% of what it costs to go there now).
In the meantime, LBJ's great society was busy setting up to subsidize failure, and a little known fact was that in order for a woman to be eligible for welfare to feed the kids, daddy could not live at home. That did more to lay the groundwork for the current malaise that afflicts a significant (now multi-cultural, multigenerational) demographic than anything I can think of: It broke the nuclear family, and with it, eventually broke the idea of a home with Mother, Father, and children in some circles. Given the choice of being homeless, unemployed, and facing high rents, what's an urban mother to do? Rural whites still (although not as much as then) refuse to go on 'relief', although that barrier has broken down over time, as has the cultural resistance to having children out of wedlock. That is a statistic that has risen across the board, despite readily available contraceptives. 
(The slumlords are the ones who really made out on that deal--"subsidized housing"). Rural life was more forgiving in that almost everyone could find work they needed done to help out and preserve dignity at the same time.

But we have been paying to promote failure, and like I said, it isn't confined to blacks.

I'm not judging anyone on the basis of appearance. I know some people do that, I have seen it. My wife, and family on her side are Chippewa (not 'res', but tribal members), and I  have seen subtle (commonly bureaucratic nonsense) allusions to the ability of native children to learn. I have found them very capable, but a school system that can barely teach whites and has a 24% drop out rate kicks them to the curb (along with anyone else, I don't believe it is just a racial thing) the second they have problems with a subject, and that has become even worse while teachers hide behind COVID.

I have seen students who embrace conservative concepts get scuttled by the liberals in the school systems and it makes my blood boil. Long ago, in Puddin'head Wilson Mark Twain took on the argument between nature and nurture being the determinant. The argument existed before that. We still haven't resolved it.

The Darwinian mindset blamed nature, and promptly used that theory to subjugate and exploit whomever it could, claiming the genetic high ground on the basis of technology it borrowed from the orientals (gunpowder) and developed further.
Others have postulated nurture, blaming this clan or that, or their belief system (protestant v Catholic), there is always some exploitable divide by which those in power can manipulate those who are not, and keep it that way.

In reality, we will never know. If a genetic marker for intelligence (raw intellectual capability) was found, than the outcry of "racism" would drown out any science involved. But without the cultural affirmation or some abnormal innate desire simply to learn, or other incentives, even those with potential genius would not be successful.

Culture (nurture) and quite possibly nature (raw, genetic ability) go hand in hand to develop any person, regardless of color.

So how about we just quit playing games and allow each to rise on their own merits?

If anything I have said makes you believe I'm a racist, well, you're wrong. I live where I live, partly because when I got here, you were seen as standing as tall as your deeds, as reliable as your word. Those are things I live by, and I don't need to put anyone else down when I can stand tall enough on my own.

If you are measuring someone by the content of their character, and not judging them as to their intelligence, moral agency, or other fundamental human attributes based on their skin color, or their "race" (whatever that means), then no, you're not a racist.

That is not inconsistent with saying that, for example, currently blacks are overwhelmingly overrepresented in crime statistics as perpetrators.  For example, I don't believe that it is inherently racist to say - as I have said before - that the most dangerous thing a young, single, black man can do is to hang out with other young, single black men, because statistically, black men are much more likely to be killed by other black men.

What would make me racist is if I attributed that statistical fact to something inherent in the genetics of blacks.  In other words, if I did that, I am ascribing a moral failure, or a lack of full moral agency, to a large number of my fellow human beings based on a very superficial characteristic.

On the other hand, if I attributed that statistical fact to the current parlous state of black culture, as such, I am not being racist unless I then take the next step - a step that most liberals take, either consciously or unconsciously - to assert that culture is genetic, that is, that the fundamental characteristics of one's culture are defined by one's skin color - one's "race".  Most liberals do that, principally by ascribing certain cultural phenomena as being "authentically black", and others as being inauthentic.  A cultural behavior can only be "authentically black" if it is necessarily derived from some inherent aspect of being black - i.e., of having certain superficial physical characteristics, like a lot of melanin in the skin, a flattened nose, kinky hair, etc, etc, etc.

I don't think of culture as being authentic in the sense of being tied to, or derived from, race.  There may certainly be some high level of historical continuity between a certain subculture and a group of individuals who all bear similar superficial physical features, but that doesn't make that historical subculture somehow "authentic" in the sense of being inherently derived from the individual's physical characteristics.

And that's all that I think I will say on the matter for now - anyone can flame me if they wish, I will not respond any more - because I don't want to get into fights and nastiness over a subject that is very fraught for everyone.

[Smokin Joe]

If you are measuring someone by the content of their character, and not judging them as to their intelligence, moral agency, or other fundamental human attributes based on their skin color, or their "race" (whatever that means), then no, you're not a racist.

That is not inconsistent with saying that, for example, currently blacks are overwhelmingly overrepresented in crime statistics as perpetrators.  For example, I don't believe that it is inherently racist to say - as I have said before - that the most dangerous thing a young, single, black man can do is to hang out with other young, single black men, because statistically, black men are much more likely to be killed by other black men.

What would make me racist is if I attributed that statistical fact to something inherent in the genetics of blacks.  In other words, if I did that, I am ascribing a moral failure, or a lack of full moral agency, to a large number of my fellow human beings based on a very superficial characteristic.

On the other hand, if I attributed that statistical fact to the current parlous state of black culture, as such, I am not being racist unless I then take the next step - a step that most liberals take, either consciously or unconsciously - to assert that culture is genetic, that is, that the fundamental characteristics of one's culture are defined by one's skin color - one's "race".  Most liberals do that, principally by ascribing certain cultural phenomena as being "authentically black", and others as being inauthentic.  A cultural behavior can only be "authentically black" if it is necessarily derived from some inherent aspect of being black - i.e., of having certain superficial physical characteristics, like a lot of melanin in the skin, a flattened nose, kinky hair, etc, etc, etc.

I don't think of culture as being authentic in the sense of being tied to, or derived from, race.  There may certainly be some high level of historical continuity between a certain subculture and a group of individuals who all bear similar superficial physical features, but that doesn't make that historical subculture somehow "authentic" in the sense of being inherently derived from the individual's physical characteristics.

And that's all that I think I will say on the matter for now - anyone can flame me if they wish, I will not respond any more - because I don't want to get into fights and nastiness over a subject that is very fraught for everyone.

Thank you for stating fine distinctions well. No, I do not think culture is determined by racial appearances. We each make our moral and cultural choices, only affected as much by those around us as we permit. That speaks to character, and that is the metric we should use.

 

[roamer_1]

I agree that it should not be, because, to my thinking, a conservative focuses, in the words of Dr. King, Jr., on the content of a person's character, not on the color of that person's skin.

But there is theory, and there is reality.  And in reality, it seems that far too many who espouse conservative opinions on many subjects, nonetheless continue to embrace the tired canard that skin color dictates intelligence and moral worth.

If I paint too broadly, and some feel ill-used by me, I apologize to them.

No apology necessary in my mind. That such a theory is even lofted here is disgraceful, and AGAINST Conservative thought, which is, as you claim, merit-based. It may be anti-American at its root, against the proposal defined in the first paragraphs ever written by the United States. The idea is utterly preposterous.

But I also don't think it takes a genius to see that black culture today (and beginning from the 1960s, just as blacks were being freed from the limits and metaphorical chains of legal racial segregation) - particularly as promoted by hustlers and liberals as being the only "authentic" black experience - is the single most salient factor in keeping far too many blacks down. 

Change the culture, change the person.

I would differ form you in the use of 'particularly' above... I would submit that should be 'only'. As I have elsewhere opined, the only place I am aware of where such a value system exists is in the inner cities as governed by liberals. I REALLY cannot find it in rural or even quasi-suburban black culture. That really must be quantified. The blacks I have been exposed to, successful blue-collar blacks, did not display ANY such thing, being every bit as patriotic, and work and family oriented as you or me.

If that is true (and it is to my reckoning) the entire substance of this vicious cycle in black culture stops nearly dead at the city limits.

To be quite honest, task (a) above is going to be hard enough.  But without understanding what complement of genes code for, or significantly affect, intelligence (whatever that may be), everything else is just speculation - or worse, prejudice - hiding behind statistical shenanigans.

I will stand upon judging folks by their merits. And by that standard, the whole thing is necessarily bullcrap, plain and simple, 'science' be damned.

[roamer_1]

What would make me racist is if I attributed that statistical fact to something inherent in the genetics of blacks.  In other words, if I did that, I am ascribing a moral failure, or a lack of full moral agency, to a large number of my fellow human beings based on a very superficial characteristic.

Quite right  - The true 'soft bigotry of low expectations'.
 

[Smokin Joe]

Quite right  - The true 'soft bigotry of low expectations'.
 

That, and being the arbiters of "offense", as if people aren't smart enough to know what they find offensive.

[Slide Rule]

Name the bright guys who can refute Murray. Maybe there aren't any. I read Steven Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" which he wrote more than a decade before The Bell Curve came out. He wrote it to supposedly debunk people like Rushton and Jensen who had produced studies showing the IQ gaps between the races.
Gould's book was unscientific and didn't disprove anything. He more or less made up his mind to "prove" that IQ tests were too faulty to show differences between the races.
The standard response of any of the people objecting to what Jensen, Rushton, Murray and Herrnstein published was to attack them personally without disproving any of their findings.
I suspect most libs know that IQ is real and that there is a standard deviation difference between blacks and whites.
But saying that publicly would destroy the Dem Party and liberalism both of which have a vested interest in making blacks believe all their problems are caused by evil, racist Whitey.

LOL

I hear from lefties that they have bright intellectual friends. Am I wrong to take them at their word?

Guess so.

There are arguments that can be made against Murray, but dims aren't going to make it because it
would leave the cat out of the bag, and blacks off the plantation.

Thomas Sowell makes such points.

There is a difference in measured IQ. And IQ is the best measure of success. Not bad for a ten
minute test.

Human Relations prefer to call for a college degree as a hiring barrier to keep out dullards
while avoiding lawsuits. They can't say directly why an IQ test that measures much of the
same criteria isn't better and certainly faster.

I bow to your observation. And thanks for your reference to Steven Jay Gould as I am always
looking for amusement.

[goatprairie]

LOL

I hear from lefties that they have bright intellectual friends. Am I wrong to take them at their word?

Guess so.

There are arguments that can be made against Murray, but dims aren't going to make it because it
would leave the cat out of the bag, and blacks off the plantation.

Thomas Sowell makes such points.

There is a difference in measured IQ. And IQ is the best measure of success. Not bad for a ten
minute test.

Human Relations prefer to call for a college degree as a hiring barrier to keep out dullards
while avoiding lawsuits. They can't say directly why an IQ test that measures much of the
same criteria isn't better and certainly faster.

I bow to your observation. And thanks for your reference to Steven Jay Gould as I am always
looking for amusement.

I'll add that I don't think high IQ necessarily makes a person moral or a superior person to people with low/lower IQs. There have been plenty of people with high IQs who have caused immense harm/evil over the millennia. For instance, many of the murderous communist leaders of the 20th century had high IQs. Lenin for example. To get where they were took a certain amount of intelligence if not plain ruthlessness.
But it is an irrefutable fact that your chances of success in life are far better with an IQ of 125 or higher than someone in the 70-80 range.
It comes down to many people in positions of influence and power know the truth but for obvious reasons cannot speak them openly.
James Watson of the Watson-Crick model/double helix has been branded an outcast because he spoke the truth about people in sub-Saharan Africa. He said, in so many words, that it is highly unlikely you'll find too many geniuses in that part of the world because there is a genetic difference in intelligence between blacks and whites.
Naturally, Watson was condemned for speaking the truth.
I'll end by stating that if we had to choose a dictator to run the country, my choice would have been Thomas Sowell.  Sowell would most likely not accept the position, but he we had to have one, he would have been my choice.
But I guess I am a race realist. If everybody else realized there are genetic differences between different groups of people, and  racism is not the cause for some demographics to not do as well as others, we'd be a lot better off.

[dancer]

I don't think it is real. I have known black folks that are sharp as a tack, and I know white folks that are as dumb as a box of hammers.

The primary problem is not fixed by sterilizing black women (what a horrid thought). The problem is getting black fathers to remain in the home. Literally the very same can be said of whites.

 

[roamer_1]

I'll add that I don't think high IQ necessarily makes a person moral or a superior person to people with low/lower IQs. There have been plenty of people with high IQs who have caused immense harm/evil over the millennia. For instance, many of the murderous communist leaders of the 20th century had high IQs. Lenin for example. To get where they were took a certain amount of intelligence if not plain ruthlessness.
But it is an irrefutable fact that your chances of success in life are far better with an IQ of 125 or higher than someone in the 70-80 range.
It comes down to many people in positions of influence and power know the truth but for obvious reasons cannot speak them openly.
James Watson of the Watson-Crick model/double helix has been branded an outcast because he spoke the truth about people in sub-Saharan Africa. He said, in so many words, that it is highly unlikely you'll find too many geniuses in that part of the world because there is a genetic difference in intelligence between blacks and whites.
Naturally, Watson was condemned for speaking the truth.
I'll end by stating that if we had to choose a dictator to run the country, my choice would have been Thomas Sowell.  Sowell would most likely not accept the position, but he we had to have one, he would have been my choice.
But I guess I am a race realist. If everybody else realized there are genetic differences between different groups of people, and  racism is not the cause for some demographics to not do as well as others, we'd be a lot better off.

Poppycock.

Foremost: I do not believe 'intelligence quotient' to be the end-all measurement of intelligence. I believe the test subscribes to a laundry-list of GQ rated bullshit posing as 'smart'.

Second: WTF is 'success'? What that looks like to me is guaranteed to be different from what you value. So now we have a baseless value judgement defining intelligence, AND a baseless value judgement defining success.

Shall I go on to ridicule the definition of 'Black' DNA, merely in the years since Rome entered Africa, Britain entered Africa, Germany entered Africa, not to mention the Dutch. ALL of them left DNA in the indigenous people as often as they could. And that's not even talking about the US and Spain since slavery headed to the Americas. All those big, powerful, successful people spreading their DNA around into all those blacks, MANY of whom later founded Haitian and mainland strains that are at least white by half somewhere in their generations.

It's all bullcrap.

[Slide Rule]

Saying something out loud is just so hurtful.

We need more safe spaces and an increase in censorship.

If you need more to get under a lefty skin, just carrying the
new and improved Murray book under your arm can do it
with minimal effort.





https://www.amazon.com/Facing-Reality-Truths-about-America/dp/1641771976/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Murray+book%2C+%22Facing+Reality%22&qid=1632575590&sr=8-1

[goatprairie]

Poppycock.

Foremost: I do not believe 'intelligence quotient' to be the end-all measurement of intelligence. I believe the test subscribes to a laundry-list of GQ rated bullshit posing as 'smart'.

Second: WTF is 'success'? What that looks like to me is guaranteed to be different from what you value. So now we have a baseless value judgement defining intelligence, AND a baseless value judgement defining success.

Shall I go on to ridicule the definition of 'Black' DNA, merely in the years since Rome entered Africa, Britain entered Africa, Germany entered Africa, not to mention the Dutch. ALL of them left DNA in the indigenous people as often as they could. And that's not even talking about the US and Spain since slavery headed to the Americas. All those big, powerful, successful people spreading their DNA around into all those blacks, MANY of whom later founded Haitian and mainland strains that are at least white by half somewhere in their generations.

It's all bullcrap.

So you're saying you can have a roomful of scientists, mathematicians, aeronautical engineers, etc. and you'll find many of them have average or low IQs?

[roamer_1]

So you're saying you can have a roomful of scientists, mathematicians, aeronautical engineers, etc. and you'll find many of them have average or low IQs?

No. but in fact, many in that room will have slightly above average IQs. And many in that room won't have the common damn sense to be able to tie their own shoes.

At some point, on the low end, IQ necessarily becomes accurate, because the subject with low IQ will predictably lack in function. But on the high side, I see  more of a continuum between intellect and creativity as seen through another between experience and knowledge.

In such a construct, height would be found where the four converge, not where any one reaches its zenith.

That is why uber-geeks are often as handicapped by their intellect as they might have been advantaged by it... Ultimately the same thing as an ultra-creative minded type (artists) being unable in the same fashion. Book-learning can feign intelligence, while street smarts and hard knocks can increase intelligence of another sort. All of which fall outside of your silly aptitude test.

And I say that with a much higher than 'normal' IQ as tested.  That and six bucks will buy you a large mocha breve with a shot of Irish creme.

EtA: And who exactly decided that a 'room full of scientists, mathematicians, aeronautical engineers, etc.' denotes anything of particular worth in the first place?

[goatprairie]

No. but in fact, many in that room will have slightly above average IQs. And many in that room won't have the common damn sense to be able to tie their own shoes.

At some point, on the low end, IQ necessarily becomes accurate, because the subject with low IQ will predictably lack in function. But on the high side, I see  more of a continuum between intellect and creativity as seen through another between experience and knowledge.

In such a construct, height would be found where the four converge, not where any one reaches its zenith.

That is why uber-geeks are often as handicapped by their intellect as they might have been advantaged by it... Ultimately the same thing as an ultra-creative minded type (artists) being unable in the same fashion. Book-learning can feign intelligence, while street smarts and hard knocks can increase intelligence of another sort. All of which fall outside of your silly aptitude test.

And I say that with a much higher than 'normal' IQ as tested.  That and six bucks will buy you a large mocha breve with a shot of Irish creme.

EtA: And who exactly decided that a 'room full of scientists, mathematicians, aeronautical engineers, etc.' denotes anything of particular worth in the first place?

"No. but in fact, many in that room will have slightly above average IQs"

 

[roamer_1]

"No. but in fact, many in that room will have slightly above average IQs"

 

You forget that statisitically, half of them will have graduated in the lower half of their class. A mathematician who pulled 'c's all the way along, is a mathematician nonetheless... and probably teaches. 

[goatprairie]

You forget that statisitically, half of them will have graduated in the lower half of their class. A mathematician who pulled 'c's all the way along, is a mathematician nonetheless... and probably teaches.

[Smokin Joe]

You forget that statistically, half of them will have graduated in the lower half of their class. A mathematician who pulled 'c's all the way along, is a mathematician nonetheless... and probably teaches.

What do you call the doctor who graduated at the bottom of his class? (Doctor).

I think what everyone is missing is that IQ intelligence is measured in context, as defined by that context.
 
Within that context, it may be a measure of function, but outside it, it isn't, and it does not predict success.
 
Many who have scored high on the tests are not motivated to utilize those measured abilities, and therefore, so not do well, either out of lack of motivation, boredom (which afflicts a lot of very bright children in today's schools), lack of desire to pursue a particular topic (or simply not seeing what good it is for them), and even out of frustration with those who they have to deal with.

With students, it might be something as simple as the inability of a teacher to impart the relevance of a topic that they might personally find fascinating, but the student couldn't care less about, or teachers trying to advance theories that obviously do not work (Marxism, for one, and the latest gender stuff). That is a real turn-off that may affect performance in a broader sense. ("It's all BS, so why bother?", is something I have heard from kids.)

The sad part is the Hubris that seems to accompany a high score, when the really intelligent (and often those who aren't) will realize that everyone out there knows more about some thing than they do. Learning requires enough humility to say "I don't know".

Take a rocket scientist who lands in the wilderness. Can they start a fire without matches or a lighter? Build shelter enough or forage for food? Yet someone who cannot do algebra, much less calculus, might be far better suited to not just survive but flourish in that environment.

But I see that, too, as a measure of the dangers of specialization, where esteemed experts can't jump a car to get it started, change a tire, don't know rudimentary First Aid...
 
I have known people who could not read much and barely write, but they have impressive skill sets they have managed to gain despite that handicap. They wouldn't likely get past the instruction section of an IQ test, yet they are far from dumb. The tests fail to measure their intelligence.

Given the test in Arabic, Chinese, or Hindi, how many Americans could do well? 

The tests do not necessarily measure ability to learn, adapt, or innovate, although there may be a correlation between those who score high and those abilities, and those who score low may lack them, statistically speaking, but in individual cases, I do not think they necessarily represent the abilities of individuals.

[roamer_1]

What do you call the doctor who graduated at the bottom of his class? (Doctor).

That's right.

I think what everyone is missing is that IQ intelligence is measured in context, as defined by that context.
 
Within that context, it may be a measure of function, but outside it, it isn't, and it does not predict success.
 
Many who have scored high on the tests are not motivated to utilize those measured abilities, and therefore, so not do well, either out of lack of motivation, boredom (which afflicts a lot of very bright children in today's schools), lack of desire to pursue a particular topic (or simply not seeing what good it is for them), and even out of frustration with those who they have to deal with.

With students, it might be something as simple as the inability of a teacher to impart the relevance of a topic that they might personally find fascinating, but the student couldn't care less about, or teachers trying to advance theories that obviously do not work (Marxism, for one, and the latest gender stuff). That is a real turn-off that may affect performance in a broader sense. ("It's all BS, so why bother?", is something I have heard from kids.)

The sad part is the Hubris that seems to accompany a high score, when the really intelligent (and often those who aren't) will realize that everyone out there knows more about some thing than they do. Learning requires enough humility to say "I don't know".

In my own case it was the strictures that were imposed. I cannot run the gambit - I must choose a specialty and be winnowed into a box. I like the big picture, and there is no real way to do that anymore.

I could have gone STEM, and nearly did, but I hung out my shingle instead, and I will never regret that... Albeit that my passions became my hobbies rather than my work.
 

Take a rocket scientist who lands in the wilderness. Can they start a fire without matches or a lighter? Build shelter enough or forage for food? Yet someone who cannot do algebra, much less calculus, might be far better suited to not just survive but flourish in that environment.

But I see that, too, as a measure of the dangers of specialization, where esteemed experts can't jump a car to get it started, change a tire, don't know rudimentary First Aid...
 
I have known people who could not read much and barely write, but they have impressive skill sets they have managed to gain despite that handicap. They wouldn't likely get past the instruction section of an IQ test, yet they are far from dumb. The tests fail to measure their intelligence.

In my life, where I have found true genius is always in a messy tinker's shop. Ain't it funny how many real leaps have taken place in a back alley garage?

Like I said, I think there is more to it than mere intellect, which involves creativity, and cannot be harnessed by ivory towers, or industry for that matter. When it is found it is a force unto itself.

And you are absolutely right - two very different intellects are at work between that scientist and that tracker/ trapper - Two wholly different ways of being, not to mention thinking. Who has the raw hubris to judge between them?

The tests do not necessarily measure ability to learn, adapt, or innovate, although there may be a correlation between those who score high and those abilities, and those who score low may lack them, statistically speaking, but in individual cases, I do not think they necessarily represent the abilities of individuals.

That's probably right.

[240B]

Any intelligence test you give to anybody...
Asians will always be first...
Black people will ALWAYS be last, any country any test, doesn't matter.

[Fishrrman]

240b, thanks once again for posting the truth in the post above this one.

Although you missed one fine detail:
In standardized IQ testing, there's an ethnic group (not actually a "racial" group) that will test even slightly higher (again "as a group") than Asians -- the Ashkenazi Jews.

IQ is almost entirely genetic/inherited in origin.
An individual's "fate and future" in this regard is sealed at the moment of conception.

This is why multi-racial societies cannot and will never achieve "equity" nor even "equality", for that matter.

Until some way is found to alter this reality, the only choice is to "face reality".

[sneakypete]

240b, thanks once again for posting the truth in the post above this one.

Although you missed one fine detail:
In standardized IQ testing, there's an ethnic group (not actually a "racial" group) that will test even slightly higher (again "as a group") than Asians -- the Ashkenazi Jews.

IQ is almost entirely genetic/inherited in origin.
An individual's "fate and future" in this regard is sealed at the moment of conception.

This is why multi-racial societies cannot and will never achieve "equity" nor even "equality", for that matter.

Until some way is found to alter this reality, the only choice is to "face reality".

@Fishrrman

It should also be noted that it doesn't come free. They work their asses off to improve themselves and their "tribe",and slackers are given the boot.

[Smokin Joe]

@Fishrrman

It should also be noted that it doesn't come free. They work their asses off to improve themselves and their "tribe",and slackers are given the boot.

But that's back to it not being solely nature (DNA) nor nurture.

For any given raw ability, the key to success is making the most of what you have, and that takes work.

Some cultures promote work, for whatever reason, be it family status ("face"), money, "success", personal status and bragging rights, or just a rack of trophies on the wall.
Some cultures value the ability to get the most with the least effort, not out of efficiency, but by "getting over" on others.
One group will make the most of their intelligence, the other, of their cunning.

[roamer_1]

Any intelligence test you give to anybody...
Asians will always be first...
Black people will ALWAYS be last, any country any test, doesn't matter.

Total bullshit, even if 'true' to anyone who understands overlapping 'normal distributions'

[goatprairie]

But that's back to it not being solely nature (DNA) nor nurture.

For any given raw ability, the key to success is making the most of what you have, and that takes work.

Some cultures promote work, for whatever reason, be it family status ("face"), money, "success", personal status and bragging rights, or just a rack of trophies on the wall.
Some cultures value the ability to get the most with the least effort, not out of efficiency, but by "getting over" on others.
One group will make the most of their intelligence, the other, of their cunning.

IQ has a lot to do with some cultures valuing hard work and some not valuing hard work.