PDA

View Full Version : I.Q. and Privilege (moved from Should White Men Stop Writing?)



TheNighSwan
07-11-2015, 04:30 AM
For the John vs Jamal argument, I have taken my cues from this article: http://datacolada.org/2015/04/23/36-how-to-study-discrimination-or-anything-with-names-if-you-must/

For IQ, people often misinterpret what IQ means. IQ doesn't mean much as a measure of "intelligence", however IQ is a really good predictor of status; high IQ is strongly correlated with high salary, good job, stable and healthy life and so on, while low IQ is strongly correlated with poverty, unstable job, criminality, drug use, teen pregnancy and so on. When some statistical researchers claim that "even after adjusting for cultural factors, the IQ of African Americans is still one standard deviation below the IQ of White Americans", this must not be interpreted as saying "black people are stupid", but rather as saying "we can show statistically with a single indice that the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)".

Lillith1991
07-11-2015, 05:07 AM
For the John vs Jamal argument, I have taken my cues from this article: http://datacolada.org/2015/04/23/36-how-to-study-discrimination-or-anything-with-names-if-you-must/.

And apparently gotten something much different out of it than I did on reading it. I found the explanation to not be adequate in the least, whether yours or the paper's. Jamal didn't just enter lowerclass Black society during the time period given, it also entered upperclass Black society in the US. The move towards what was percieved as a Pan-African culture in regards to names was embraced by all strata of Black people. The assumption, no matter how well intentioned, that Jamal is a "lowerclass name" then becomes racist.

kuwisdelu
07-11-2015, 05:13 AM
For the John vs Jamal argument, I have taken my cues from this article: http://datacolada.org/2015/04/23/36-how-to-study-discrimination-or-anything-with-names-if-you-must/

For IQ, people often misinterpret what IQ means. IQ doesn't mean much as a measure of "intelligence", however IQ is a really good predictor of status; high IQ is strongly correlated with high salary, good job, stable and healthy life and so on, while low IQ is strongly correlated with poverty, unstable job, criminality, drug use, teen pregnancy and so on. When some statistical researchers claim that "even after adjusting for cultural factors, the IQ of African Americans is still one standard deviation below the IQ of White Americans", this must not be interpreted as saying "black people are stupid", but rather as saying "we can show statistically with a single indice that the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)".

There are so many problems with this post I'm going to need a real keyboard to address all of them. Forgive me while I wait until I have more than my phone at my disposal.

Darron
07-11-2015, 09:38 AM
For the John vs Jamal argument, I have taken my cues from this article: http://datacolada.org/2015/04/23/36-how-to-study-discrimination-or-anything-with-names-if-you-must/

For IQ, people often misinterpret what IQ means. IQ doesn't mean much as a measure of "intelligence", however IQ is a really good predictor of status; high IQ is strongly correlated with high salary, good job, stable and healthy life and so on, while low IQ is strongly correlated with poverty, unstable job, criminality, drug use, teen pregnancy and so on. When some statistical researchers claim that "even after adjusting for cultural factors, the IQ of African Americans is still one standard deviation below the IQ of White Americans", this must not be interpreted as saying "black people are stupid", but rather as saying "we can show statistically with a single indice that the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)".

I reviewed the article you have been using and read through several of the studies it pulled from. In multiple cases the authors point out that someone's name can get them fewer callbacks to a job. They give several possible reasons for this and then circle back to how that is an incidental/intentional discriminatory practice. This addresses white naming privilege; if a "whiter" name gets more callbacks then they have a leg up on the competition.
I appreciate that at least one study showed little correlation once the interview was given for a preference of white/black names and would like to hear more of that. To your point about Jamal vs Bubba, that mixes culture into this naming discussion because "Luann" and other (generally Southern sounding) names are a subset of the white population and can be viewed negatively because of stereotypes. I feel like this is just chasing our tails because stereotypes don't disprove privilege. Like we have said before it is a complicated issue that comes from many sources. A more "traditional white name" like Brad, Greg, and Todd don't generally have a stereotype tied to them and so those can sound more hire-able. If that doesn't sound like an advantage getting to an interview then I don't know what to tell you.

For your IQ thing, that needs some sources because I call BS on that. You bring that source (remember we don't accept anecdotal evidence) and then we'll see if that holds up. I had to delete a whole rant over this. Put up or hush up with this IQ thing.

TheNighSwan
07-11-2015, 07:01 PM
Darron > I think you need to clarify one thing: in your view, does privilege consists primarily/solely of the unconscious outgroup discrimination exerted by an ingroup in a position of social-economic dominance, or does this also include any natural/cultural/accidental/historical advantage that ingroup might have —for example, if it turned out that the hardship of the African American community was primarily due to them being majoritarily in a situation of poverty trap, rather than to outright discrimination, would you still consider this a form of privilege for White Americans?

I'm asking because originally I thought you implied the former, but the more I read you the more you seem to imply the latter, which would explains why there are understanding difficulties in our conversation.


As for IQ, here are various studies that go in the direction I have claimed:
A study showing low IQ very strongly correlates with high criminal rate (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961500077X) (you can skip directly to the conclusion graph (https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/614003599220322304) if you don't want to read the whole study).
An article mentionning multiple studies on the same theme. (http://law.jrank.org/pages/1363/Intelligence-Crime-Measuring-size-IQ-crime-correlation.html)
A study showing IQ is a "relatively good predictor of life success" (with some reservations). (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20628656?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
Two (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/9/1000) studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916657) showing SAT scores (which strongly correlate with IQ score) are good predictors of academic success.
Two (http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1998-10661-006) meta studies (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/86/1/162/) showing that general mental ability (GMA, the main thing measured by IQ tests) correlates strongly with better job performances.
A graph from a study showing that people with higher IQ are much more likely to escape poverty. (https://twitter.com/bechhof/status/586005427332259840) (though it also shows that at equal IQ scores, Black people are less likely to move out of poverty than White people)
A study showing people with high IQ scores tend to live longer. (http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7290/819)
A related study showing high IQ is correlated with healthier life style. (http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1.short)

I'll get ahead of you and admit that yes, there are also studies which contradict those results (though there do not seem to be nearly as many), but that's hardly surprising: unless the effect you want to observe is glaringly significant and obvious, you'll always get contradicting studies on the matter —I'm sure we can find a couple of serious, rigorous studies that do show a correlation between vaccines and autism, or that aspirin has no more effect than a placebo (here's a good blog article (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/) about why there are dozens of scientifically rigorous studies that seem to show that psychic powers exist [the article get into rather technical statistics but at worse you can skip those bits, the article as a whole is worth reading).

At worst this only implies than more and better studies are needed.

Darron
07-12-2015, 03:05 AM
TheNighSwan, it's both. Sometimes it comes from outside factors like employers and how the justice system is run, other times it can be personal choices and a matter of being born in the right time/place. There are racists in the world who intimidate and cause harm, there are people who don't like to go out of their cultural comfort zone, there are people who are completely unaware that what they are doing could be because of privilege, and more. I would consider your example about the poverty trap an example of white privilege. Both the average starting point and upward mobility of black vs white families are different with whites in a better spot, which can be thought of as both a historical issue and outside forces holding families back. There are all kinds (http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/white-privilege-explained/) of (http://www.buzzfeed.com/michaelblackmon/17-harrowing-examples-of-white-privilege-9hu9#.xgYxYKY5Z) examples (http://jimbuie.blogs.com/journal/2007/11/50-examples-of-.html) of (http://boingboing.net/2015/04/08/simple-comic-strip-explains-th.html) privilege, many are even just things a white person doesn't have to think about that can cause stress/anxiety/nervousness and affect one's day to day life.

Here's addressing your IQ statement and the links you included, I put the link as the # to avoid mix up and my quick thoughts on what I was able to read:
1. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961500077X) I can’t view anything about the study w/o purchasing it, the graphs I can see measure IQ and crime, does not compare white vs PoC
2. (http://law.jrank.org/pages/1363/Intelligence-Crime-Measuring-size-IQ-crime-correlation.html) Doesn’t compare white vs black, again shows that criminal behavior correlates to lower scores. Compared black females to other black females, not supporting your claim.
3. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20628656?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) Can’t view anything but abstract, still seems to correlate criminal activity vs low IQ score, which I am not arguing against.
4. (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/9/1000) Can’t read, issue pointing out low SES schools and a perpetual cycle of poverty, “The SES of enrolled students was very similar to that of specific schools’ applicant pools, which suggests that the barrier to college for low-SES students in the United States is a lower rate of entering the college admissions process, rather than exclusion on the part of colleges.”
5. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916657) High SAT = better performance, race mentioned but can’t read study, didn't mention differences in admission rate or scores.
6. (http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1998-10661-006) Can’t open, compares some test and job performance, doesn’t mention race
7. (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/86/1/162/) GMA, another test to show job performance, race not mentioned in abstract
8. (https://twitter.com/bechhof/status/586005427332259840) AFQT isn’t the same as an IQ test. Roughly half the graph shows there is no significant difference between whites and blacks of similar AFQT, with differences occurring in the top and bottom 25%
9. (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?307401-Should-White-Men-Stop-Writing&p=9486381#post9486381) More intelligent = longer life
10. (http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1.short) More intelligent = longer life

So here's my take-
6 of your links would require me to purchase the study (and some weren't cheap) so I only read the abstract given. 1 of those 6 even mentioned race and it didn't highlight any key differences in IQ.
Of the 4 that I could read the article or graph given, 3 didn't compare whites vs blacks at all (link #2 noted black females with themselves).

One graph that does show (not IQ) scores comparing white and blacks is measuring upward mobility out of the bottom 20% SES. This graph doesn't compare scores to each other. It does not say that whites did better overall than blacks. This graph only shows that for the bottom and top quartile blacks have less a chance to escape poverty than whites.

So here is my problem, not 1 of the 10 articles you showed me proved your point even a little. The only one close does not support what you claimed in the last post. That graph for #8 shows that higher scores on the AFQT allows better upward mobility but it does not support your previous post about whites scoring a standard deviation higher. If anything, there is a problem that someone who is black and scoring well on one of those tests has a harder issue than a white person of the same score (privilege).

You HAVE NOT shown in any way that blacks do worse than whites on IQ tests. The quote you gave,


For IQ, people often misinterpret what IQ means. IQ doesn't mean much as a measure of "intelligence", however IQ is a really good predictor of status; high IQ is strongly correlated with high salary, good job, stable and healthy life and so on, while low IQ is strongly correlated with poverty, unstable job, criminality, drug use, teen pregnancy and so on. When some statistical researchers claim that "even after adjusting for cultural factors, the IQ of African Americans is still one standard deviation below the IQ of White Americans", this must not be interpreted as saying "black people are stupid", but rather as saying "we can show statistically with a single indice that the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)".

Seems to just come from you because it wasn't in anything I was able to read. I agree that lower scores on standardized tests correlates to a plethora of issues later in life, but the 2nd half about blacks is utter crap.

kuwisdelu
07-12-2015, 03:33 AM
For IQ, people often misinterpret what IQ means. IQ doesn't mean much as a measure of "intelligence", however IQ is a really good predictor of status; high IQ is strongly correlated with high salary, good job, stable and healthy life and so on, while low IQ is strongly correlated with poverty, unstable job, criminality, drug use, teen pregnancy and so on. When some statistical researchers claim that "even after adjusting for cultural factors, the IQ of African Americans is still one standard deviation below the IQ of White Americans", this must not be interpreted as saying "black people are stupid", but rather as saying "we can show statistically with a single indice that the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)".

Okay, I'm actually still on my phone today, so this will be short and simple.

But first of all, IQ is indeed intended to be a measure of intelligence. As you yourself point out, it is quite poor at this, because it really measures particular kinds of intelligence as valued by the culture that designed it. I.e., Western European culture.

So those who interpret IQ as intending to measure intelligence are not mistaken.

You, however, point out that IQ is a good predictor of many other things including "status". A "good predictor" of something is not a measure of that thing, nor does it even imply it was ever intended to measure that thing. You seem to be the one with the misunderstanding here.

That high IQ is highly correlated with success in a Western civilization is not surprising in the least, but neither does it imply "problems" with those who score low or even those who lack success in such an environment. Of course IQ correlates well with success in a Western civilization: it is designed to measure those ways of thinking that Western civilizations values.

What this means is NOT that Black communities or other demographics that score low are less intelligent OR "have problems", but rather that our society is burdened with cultural expectations over particular ways of thinking, likely at the expense of other ways of thinking that are just as useful but less valued in our (imposed) culture.

In other words by saying "the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)", what is often actually being said is that "the African American community has different cultural values and ways of knowing than the White Anerican community (let's see what we can do to make them think more like white people)."

I should note that this ignores that many African American communities and other underrepresented communities ARE underserved in education and educational opportunities, which is a separate issue from the cultural bias of IQ tests, but just as (and probably much more immediately) important.

kuwisdelu
07-12-2015, 03:35 AM
So much for short and simple. That was a real pain in the ass to type on my phone.

Darron
07-12-2015, 04:15 AM
Kuwisdelu, I honestly don't know if NighSwan is just not getting it or back peddling from his last remark, but I appreciate you and others calling BS on that ridiculous statement.

Liosse de Velishaf
07-12-2015, 04:41 AM
First, if we're even gonna talk about IQ tests with reservations, we need to break them down into their different sections, because those sections measure different things.

Second, everything Kuwi said.

kuwisdelu
07-12-2015, 04:49 AM
I can use ice cream sales to predict the weather.

It still doesn't mean shit.

Ken
07-12-2015, 06:22 AM
(attempt at humor)

TheNighSwan
07-12-2015, 07:11 AM
There's been a major misunderstanding, apparently.

I thought I was being asked to defend the claim which I was obviously personally endorsing ("IQ is a good predicator of success"), as opposed to the claim I was clearly presenting as a hypothetical claim by some other person and clearly distancing myself from ("African American IQ is one standard deviation below White American IQ") —even though I know this is actually a claim some researchers make [but since right now I have major internet connectivity issues, I can't provide any source; I will do so as soon as I can]. Let's read each other a little bit more carefully before making assumptions, and let's be a little bit more precise in which claim of the other person we are answering to, and the conversation will be more efficient.

Darron > on privilege; from your description, it sounds that the content of the claim "White people have privilege" is virtually indistiguishable from the content of the claim "white people do better than non-White people on average". Do you agree with this analysis? If you do, what usefulness do you see in prefering the first formulation over the second, knowing that the first triggers resistance and denial in a lot of White people, whereas the second is an almost universally recognized reality?

I'll answer on the IQ stuff later (hopefully, no later than tomorrow) when my internet works normally again. As a preliminary I do note that, interestingly, you both seem to take offense with both the hypothesis that Black people have lower IQ on average than White people and with the hypothesis that IQ measures something universal and objective, which is weird: if either of these propositions is false, then there's no reason to take issue with the other one. If IQ indeed measures something objective but black scores do not differ from white scores, then where's the problem? And if it turns out black scores are inferior to white scores but IQ doesn't really measure anything objective, then, again, where's the problem?

aruna
07-12-2015, 08:25 AM
What Kuwi said.
An urban North American with all his/her high IQ points would be totally adrift in a different environment requiring a different intelligence.
What about the intelligence of, say, an Amerindian living in a remote area in the depths of Guyana. He might score very low on a US intelligence test, simply because his way of thinking is a different one, and his intelligence adapted to survival in his environment. There, sensory skills are so acute as to appear almost miraculous for someone from the Western world, while we appear dull, helpless, and, yes, stupid.

Darron
07-12-2015, 08:53 AM
TheNighSwan, you provided a quote that you couldn't back up. I honestly see where your confusion was, but it was the quote I was requesting you prove.
This was your post,

When some statistical researchers claim that "even after adjusting for cultural factors, the IQ of African Americans is still one standard deviation below the IQ of White Americans", this must not be interpreted as saying "black people are stupid", but rather as saying "we can show statistically with a single indice that the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)".

You quoted someone or yourself and you didn't back that up.

Please don't try and twist what I have said. I have said White people have privilege and provided evidence that shows different factors that hinder and weigh on other races. A false assumption can be made (lower IQ scores) and an unfair test given (IQ and AFQT) which is my case here. I take offense because a poor test can effect an entire culture and an educational/justice system that treats minorities unfairly based on false pretenses like IQ scores and differences in culture.

Discussing the differences between scores on standardized tests is another topic for another thread. This thread is about white privilege and I wager enough of a case has been made. Want to talk more about IQs and learning/poverty gaps? Make a new thread.

Please and thank you!

cornflake
07-12-2015, 11:19 AM
IQ testing, by which I mean the bigger, well-established, well-validated (both ways) tests, like the WISC/WAIS and S-B type, is a decent measure of what we generally define as intelligence, partially because the general perception of IQ relates to what's tested.

As for the tests themselves being culturally or ethnically or geographically biased, some, few sections, mostly verbal, that rely on specific knowledge of facts and vocabulary and the like, sure. Many of the sections test things like working memory, pattern recognition (abstract-type patterns), and other things that don't really have cultural or language ties (save the instructions, which shouldn't be an issue, as they're given by the administrating professional).

Ken
07-12-2015, 03:19 PM
Must be something to have a high IQ. Some on AW clearly do. You can tell by their posts. Me, I'm lucky if I score 30 if I ever took the test. But like everything, you make the best of things and work with what you have. Being smart is a plus to be sure but it isn't the be all end all, IMO !

aruna
07-12-2015, 04:07 PM
What, so high? Boy, you're smart!

autumnleaf
07-12-2015, 04:13 PM
As for the tests themselves being culturally or ethnically or geographically biased, some, few sections, mostly verbal, that rely on specific knowledge of facts and vocabulary and the like, sure. Many of the sections test things like working memory, pattern recognition (abstract-type patterns), and other things that don't really have cultural or language ties (save the instructions, which shouldn't be an issue, as they're given by the administrating professional).

The ability to deal with abstractions is something that improves with practice, and so of course it's influenced by culture and background. Modern people perform better on IQ tests than previous generations, and it's not because our ancestors were stupid. It's that modern education and experience, things like reading fiction and playing computer games, require a level of abstract thinking, so we get to practice the skills that are looked for on IQ tests.

bombergirl69
07-12-2015, 04:46 PM
Didn’t make it through every page (and no, I don’t think white men need to stop writing) but of course am interested in any discussion of IQ testing!!

First, intelligence tests should not be confused with testsof achievement (SAT, e.g.). Different animal.

Second, Kuwi nailed it as far as IQ tests being culture bound in a variety of ways. They were developed to ID kids who would do well in school and that they continue to do pretty well. The debate lies in what exactly we are measuring and what conclusions we can draw.

You cannot talk about IQ tests without talking about theories of intelligence, what we are measuring and whether or not intelligence is a single or multiple construct. For example, there are distinctions between what might be innate vs what might belearned from experience. Some cultures value cognitive processing speed, some do not. In an excellent article that I cannot link to (Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2014) it's noted that the Luo in Kenya have several concepts of intelligence – rieko, similar to our academic intelligence, paro, pracitical thinking, luoro, social skills, and winjo, ability to follow instruction. The authors note that practical skills are far more emphasized, and our western test would really only address one of these constructs.

One also cannot talk about IQ tests without talking about validation.To have a good test, one has to make it reliable, i.e., the test taker would score the same regardless of circumstance (why the Myers-Briggs, which is not an IQ test, is NOT a good test) and valid (measure what it is designed to measure.) And we have many different kinds of validation. So we have face validity (does the test look like it tests what we want it to? Sometimes we do NOT want a face valid test).We have criterion related validity which is how well a test score predicts some outcome, and that is what Kuwi is getting at (I think). So if we want a test to tell us how well a student will do in college, we might use first year GPA, or something. That would give us some predictive validity, but of course, that is indeed culture bound! Concurrent validity measures the test's relationship to a similar measure of the same construct, which is indeed culture bound. And there is contruct validity– how well does, in this case, our test measure what we define asintelligence? And depending on how we define intelligence, this may vary. Again, people toss around "intelligence" like it's a clear, obvious construct, but it isn't really. And we are seeing that it is very, very tricky to get beyond culture.

Even the nonverbal tasks and tests that try to get beyond language are now viewed as culturally loaded (patricia greenfield, manyarticles) . So sure,cultures that have access to video games and so forth will have an advantage on some of the processing tasks, those with a more oral tradition a possible advantage on the verbal tasks,to be simplistic about it. Nothing is "culture free" (maybe "culturally reduced")

It’s pretty simplistic to just talk about one race or another doing well or poorly without really talking about all the other contexts that are relevant. Obviously,we do use IQ tests and use them in a helpful manner, but can draw inaccurate conclusions (miss moderating and mediating variables, for example). Or forget that there is always error (we talk about a score within a range.) And that scores are comprised of several domains, so that people can have roughly similar scores but get there in very different ways.

All that to say I agree very much with Kuwi!

Amadan
07-12-2015, 06:52 PM
I think IQ is somewhat meaningful, in that someone who tests with a high IQ is almost certainly "smarter" (for some value of smart) than someone who does not.

Some of the people talking about "different kinds of intelligence" are really talking about particular skills. A skill is something that can be improved with practice, whereas intelligence (to the degree we can measure such a thing) is innate.

I don't know of any strong correlation between IQ and either academic success or general success in life. Because what actually gets you through life is skills.

bombergirl69
07-12-2015, 07:24 PM
I don't think i'd say different kinds of intelligence are just skills. Fluid intelligence, according to Cattell, is really the ability to reason and think abstractly without any prior instruction or practice. Crystalized intelligence is the knowledge that comes from experience and learning. These are distinct entities. FI decreases over time and age, whereas CI increases (in general). And sure, testing tries to get at both of these but that again gets back to how culture bound our definitions of "intelligence" are (which attributes are valued) and how we can measure them cross culturally. Yes, some constructs are valued pretty globally - judgement, reasoning, etc.- but again, how we measure these and capture how they get expressed in different cultures is what is tricky. Is someone who knows about herbs and medicinal plants but scores poorly on tradidtional measures of IQ "dumber" than someone who scores higher (but knows nothing about traditional healing)? The argument is that there are people who score 140+ but don't know how to find water in a desert. So, again, you have to compare apples to apples; and not apples to lopi sweaters! For what the tests are designed for, they do pretty well, but it's when we start drawing a lot of conclusions that things get murkier!

What gets us through life...skills, luck, faith, access to resources...

Amadan
07-12-2015, 07:34 PM
Is someone who knows about herbs and medicinal plants but scores poorly on tradidtional measures of IQ "dumber" than someone who scores higher (but knows nothing about traditional healing)? The argument is that there are people who score 140+ but don't know how to find water in a desert.

There are people who score 140+ but can't do simple algebra. Because they haven't learned it. What intelligence (as we usually use the term) means is one's ability to learn and process things. Learning to find water in the desert is a skill - given two people who don't know how to do this, a person with an IQ of 140 and a person with an IQ of 100, the person with the IQ of 140 would almost certainly learn the skill faster.

bombergirl69
07-12-2015, 07:34 PM
we get to practice the skills that are looked for on IQ tests. This for sure.

bombergirl69
07-12-2015, 07:41 PM
Not with no other information, not really. 100 is average. And we don't know anything about that individual's scores on the various domains that comprise the score. Great working memory? Poor verbal? Sure, someone with 140 has more of "something" but again, we don't know how he got there. She probably has more of something that we are measuring than the person with 100 but whether or not that something translates into "can learn to find water quicker" - maybe maybe not. And we have to look at the host of other factors that influence performance.

Saying that 140 is just smarter than 100 is not, IMO, really very helpful. It s more helpful to talk about superior reasoning skills as measured by..whatever measure, or superior performance on such and such a measure, which we know to be correlated with superior performance in another area. And, numbers are reported in ranges anyway, because we know there is error.

TheNighSwan
07-12-2015, 07:44 PM
Darron > you appear to be yourself dodging my question: do you or do you not think that the propositions "white people have privilege" and "white people do better than non-white people on average" are equivalent? If you don't, what difference do you ascribe to these two claims. If you do, why do you prefer the first formulation over the second?


Then, I do in fact think IQ is relevant in a discussion on white privilege, which is why I brought it up in the first place. Let me expose my reasoning:

First, it does appear that IQ measures something objective: it's a very good predictor of success in life (evidence provided two post above).

Second, it also appears that IQ is not an innate, genetic trait, but a skill that can be developped, and is developped more favorably in certain social and cultural environments than others, as can be seen from the fact that populations that differ on cultural factors but not on genetical ones will often score differently on IQ tests (for instance, white atheist americans and white episcopalian americans seem to have significantly higher IQ scores than other denominations (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/12/religion-iq/) [note: this is a blog article that comments a study, with quotation and graphic excerpts from it, but the study itself seems to have been taken down]).

I don't see any uncompatibility between those two claims. It is reasonable to assume IQ is a skill that is more likely to develop in some environments than in others, but it is also reasonable to assume it is a real skill which brings concrete benefits no matter which culture you come from or find yourself in, as opposed to just a prestige signaling tool for white people (if that was the case you would not expect Chinese people in the UK to score so significantly higher than white people (https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/glassessment.pdf) at least on quantitative reasoning and non-verbal reasoning (direct link to relevant graph (http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Chisala-4.png)).

Let's keep this in mind.

The debate over the possibility that African Americans score lower on IQ tests than White Americans has most recently flared up with the publication of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's controversial book The Bell Curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve), which argued for a genetic origin of differences in IQ and argued for reduced immigration to the US so as to preverse national IQ from declining .

The book of course provoked many passionate responses and rebuttals, and this is where things get interesting. Among the rebuttals was a report of the American Psychological Association titled Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdf), which, while clearly rejecting most of the conclusions of the book, also pretty much aknowledged that [i]"The relatively low mean of the distribution of African American intelligence test scores has been discussed for many years. Although studies using different tests and samples yield a range of results, the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites (Jensen, 1980; Loehlin et al., 1975; Reynolds et al., 1987). The difference is largest on those tests (verbal or nonverbal) that best represent the general intelligence factor g (Jensen, 1985)." (Although they also point out that the gap appears to have shrunk in recent years).

They also note that: "It is often argued that the lower mean scores of African Americans reflect a bias in the intelligence tests themselves. This argument is right in one sense of “bias” but wrong in another. To see the first of these, consider how the term is used in probability theory. When a coin comes up heads consistently for any reason it is said to be “biased,” regardless of any consequences that the outcome may or may not have. In this sense the Black/White score differential is ipso facto evidence of what may be called “outcome bias.” African Americans are subject to outcome bias not only with respect to tests but along many dimensions of American life. They have the short end of nearly every stick: average income, representation in high-level occupations, health and health care, death rate, confrontations with the legal system, and so on. With this situation in mind, some critics regard the test score differential as just another example of a pervasive outcome bias that characterizes our society as a whole (Jackson, 1975; Mercer, 1984). Although there is a sense in which they are right, this critique ignores the particular social purpose that tests are designed to serve."

(If you want more on the subject, here's a review article (hhttp://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf) of 30 years of research on intelligence, which pretty much states that "Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute. A meta-analytic review by Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001) showed it also holds for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT; N = 2.4 million) and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE; N = 2.3 million), as well as for tests for job applicants in corporate settings (N = 0.5 million) and in the military (N = 0.4 million). Because test scores are the best predictor of economic success in Western society (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), these group differences have important societal outcomes (R. A. Gordon, 1997; Gottfredson, 1997).")


So, if 1) IQ is a good predictor of life success and 2) African American IQ is lower on average than White American IQ, then we should observe that on average African Americans are less well off than White Americans. Since we observe exactly that, and since we have also shown through data on immigrant IQ that IQ seems to be tied to cultural/social environment, then, we actually have all the reasons to rejoice instead of being offended: we have just come up with an objective, empirical indicator of privilege!

Thus, saying that black scores on IQ tests tend to be lower than white scores on IQ is no more demeaning or racist than saying that African Americans tend to be poorer, have less access to education, have lower life expectancy, and are more likely to get in confrontation with the justice system than White Americans: the first claim is just a statistical synthetisation of the second claim in a single, easy to measure indice.

So yes, I do believe IQ, as an indicator of the well being of a given community, is very releveant to discussions on privilege; if we can properly identify the causes of this IQ gap (and we have established they are not genetic), then we will have made a great step toward adressing and closing the privilege gap.

buz
07-12-2015, 08:04 PM
Darron > you appear to be yourself dodging my question: do you or do you not think that the propositions "white people have privilege" and "white people do better than non-white people on average" are equivalent? If you don't, what difference do you ascribe to these two claims. If you do, why do you prefer the first formulation over the second?

I don't think those are equivalent. Especially since "do better" is not very well-defined.

When I think of white privilege, I think of a PoC friend who worried that his employment applications were being passed over because he has a very non-white name, who was struggling with the idea of anglicizing it, and how I do not have this problem.

It's a simple thing, and I don't know how measurable it is, though if it is, it is definitely not by a single parameter. That example, in fact, has nothing to do with IQ, does it...

It's just a way of saying that whiteness is still seen as the ingroup thing by the metaphorical Gatsby eyes on the billboard and the idea of PoC being "the other" is not gone, and that needs to go away. How you would even begin to measure that, I would think, would involve a hundred different metrics, wouldn't it? I mean, how would you measure how isolated people feel? How do you measure othering?

I don't know. You seem to be fixated on measurable outcomes just because they're measurable. Sometimes it's difficult or impossible to measure things that are still very real. We can't objectively measure psychological distress, or even physical pain, and often we can't look to the terminal outcome of a situation to find its solution or cause. Doctors still treat it anyway.

Amadan
07-12-2015, 08:08 PM
I don't think "White people have privilege" is exactly equivalent to "White people do better than non-white people on average," but the latter would logically be a consequence of the former. I am not sure I understand the distinction NighSwan is trying to make. The second statement is an outcome; the first is a possible explanation.

Darron
07-12-2015, 08:18 PM
I like this post much better. The two statements I still don't agree with "white people do better than non-white people on average." I would slightly change that to, "white people do better on standardized tests on average."

The difference between "white people have privilege" and "white people do better than non-white people on average" is that the former implies an advantage and the latter sounds like a white supremacist would say. Wording matters because these statements can lead to very different conclusions.

The reason I like this post is because we aren't debating the existence of white privilege and you're now identifying ways to quantify how privilege influences measured outcomes. That is a widely researched topic that isn't exactly debatable, but if you dig through it all and want to offer solutions you're welcome to do so. I am a teacher, I'm aware of many educational, societal, and cultural issues positively and negatively affecting my students. If you want to discuss your ideas to fix those achievement gaps, I'm open to it.

Kylabelle
07-12-2015, 09:34 PM
I've separated out the most recent I.Q. and privilege posts from the thread Should White Men Stop Writing? as a distinct discussion. We may move the thread to another room, but please do continue here for now. Thank you.

Liosse de Velishaf
07-12-2015, 10:35 PM
IQ tests don't even compare white people all that well, necessarily. Here's my favorite example of the received knowledge cultural bias in IQ tests, at least from the non-processing sections:

Test asks where kid would expect to find a lot of/the most trees. Obvious correct answer is "In the country", because cities have less nature, don'tcha know. Kid is from a part of Atlanta with a lot of green space. Like a ton. So he answers "the city". Because that's his personal/cultural experience. Kid loses points because his experience doesn't match received wisdom.


Someone also made an argument once about how different cultures look at authority. There was a study or something that showed middle class white kids were much more likely to learn textbooks by rote and call it knowledge, whereas black kids were taught to question authority, and not take what was in the textbook on faith. Guess what? White kids did better on tests and stuff. Got lots of received knowledge. Guess what else? A lot of the knowledge was wrong. Or biased. Or spun by propagandistic views of history. Who's the smart culture now?



The whole point of white privilege is that the mainstream culture has privilege because that's what society values. So when you say "White kids do better on tests that measure likelihood of success" you leave out the fact that those measures of success are based on what's important the mainstream culture. That's the whole definition of privilege, "the things your culture cares about and instructs you in and that you are likely to do well with are the things that the majority culture values". Ipso facto, you have an advantage. Just because it so happens that the majority culture in a society, the culture who gets to define what counts as success, happens to have different views than someone else's culture doesn't make that someone else's culture inferior. It just isn't the one the policy makers are thinking about when they structure society. The culture that makes the rules has privilege because they get to make the rules. They never stop to consider that there may be other cultures out there whose values don't match theirs and thus aren't served well by the society they construct.


So when NighSwan says "IQ/standardized tests measure the likelihood of success in our society", it's a tautology. Because the society is based on the standards tested for. Well, duh. And who makes those standards? White people in a white culture with white privilege.

kuwisdelu
07-12-2015, 11:04 PM
As for the tests themselves being culturally or ethnically or geographically biased, some, few sections, mostly verbal, that rely on specific knowledge of facts and vocabulary and the like, sure. Many of the sections test things like working memory, pattern recognition (abstract-type patterns), and other things that don't really have cultural or language ties (save the instructions, which shouldn't be an issue, as they're given by the administrating professional).

Those abstract things you mention like pattern recognition absolutely rely on on cultural perspective and expectations.

For example, given the sequence 2,4,6, give the number that comes next.

You and I might say "8", because we know what the cultural expectations of that kind of question are.

Someone else might say "7, because 2 is the number of children I have, 4 is the number of children my sister has, 6 is the number of children my younger older brother has, and 7 is the number of children my older older brother has."

That's a perfectly valid pattern, but of course it would be marked wrong.


Thus, saying that black scores on IQ tests tend to be lower than white scores on IQ is no more demeaning or racist than saying that African Americans tend to be poorer, have less access to education, have lower life expectancy, and are more likely to get in confrontation with the justice system than White Americans: the first claim is just a statistical synthetisation of the second claim in a single, easy to measure indice.

Bolding mine. No. No, it's not.

I don't dispute that IQ is a good predictor of these things, and is highly correlated with them, but it does not directly measure them, nor is it even intended to be a surrogate variable for them, so you cannot call it a statistical index of those things any more than I can record the number of ice creams sold and call it a weather report.

Sorry, but I'm a statistician, and you are simply using the language improperly.


So yes, I do believe IQ, as an indicator of the well being of a given community.

Another thing to note is how is "well-being of a community" defined? It's easy to point at some socioeconomic measures and call it "success" or "well-being", but by doing so (generic) you are asserting a value on those measures at the expense of others. It's a cultural value.

In many Western countries, we point at things like income, social status, education, etc., as indicators of well-being. But one could just as easily ask things like "how strong are family relationships in the community?", "are elders respected and taken care of?", "are people happy?" and call the answers to these questions indicators of well-being.

Ken
07-13-2015, 01:13 AM
Maybe IQ tests could be reconfigured so they don't show favor? Or maybe, done away with entirely? What do the tests accomplish anyway other than allowing some to feel superior to others. (My two cents.)

Usher
07-13-2015, 02:20 AM
Not all IQ tests are equal. The very first IQ test I had took a full morning to do and covered mental, concentration, emotional and physical tests.

My mental IQ is ridiculously high but my physical one is very low so I even out at high rather than very high. My verbal/language skills were similar in results to my mathematical and logic ones.

But then I have Fibromyalgia which kills my ability to access my brain so if anything my mind is a curse. Also my major crash has sort of wiped part of my memory. I come up with answers and have no idea how I know them.

All IQ is is a potential - life deals with the rest. It's not a measure of success. The curator at a museum I worked at called mine a helicopter brain - it whizzed round at high speed, collecting information and making everyone dizzy. Once I'd stopped the propellers then those around me could recover and use the brilliant idea that no one else had thought of. She was highly complimentary (not least because she was an amazingly talented and very quick minded individual herself) but it is a good description as how my mind works. I've learned to calm it down with meditation.

But Kuwisedelu is right there is cultural knowledge and basic skills required to complete an IQ test. I'll score less on some American written ones than a British devised on for that reason. As soon as things like imperial measurements or cities (in the anagrams) etc form a part of it it takes more thought and slows me down.

TheNighSwan
07-13-2015, 03:01 AM
What I'm really trying to know when I ask if "white people are privileged" and "white people do better" are equivalent propositions, is if all systematic outcome differences between two groups is always to be analysed as a product of privilege (in which case the two propositions are equivalent) or if there can be some systematic outcome differences between two groups that can't be analysed as a product of privilege (in which case the two propositions aren't equivalent) —in the latter case, I would appreciate examples too.

I'm not asking this to try to prove and disprove anything, I'm only trying to understand the subtler nuances of the privilege theory.

Buzhidao > I do think that in light of a claim as big as "white people benefit from systemic privilege in all aspects of their life", having solid empirical evidence to back it up is not an optional luxury —even if the evidence has to be indirect. We may indeed not be able to directly measure psychological distress, but we can certainly observe and measure numerous consequences of it, from substance absuse to suicide rate to psychological symptoms and so on.


Darron > as it is, I don't have specific ideas as how to fix anything, I'm merely tying to understand the theory; by understand I mean "not outright reject it as nonsense" but also "not outright accepting it at face value without questioning it". So that's what I'm doing: I'm questioning, I'm trying to understand the deeper implications of the claim, the underlying assumptions of the theory, what it claims and doesn't claim, what it predicts and doesn't predicts, how it relates to the avalaible data, how indices like IQ might be relevant to it and why. When I think I got something, I try to formulate it clearly to you (general) so you tell me if my assumption is correct or not, which in either case often brings further questions.

I have no a priori thought on this, I don't secretely think that this is all hogwash; I'm just trying to understand, and not just superficially.


Liosse, Kuwisdelu > the problem of cultural bias in IQ tests has been adressed by researchers; controlled studies have found no evidence that either the formulation of the questions or the way they were administrated lead to significant differences in test outcome; attemps to design tests culturally adapted to African Americans haven't produced significant differences either (I've already linked this document, see bottom of page 17-upper part of page 18 (http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdf)).

The two examples you give aren't really convincing: the "tree" one doesn't really look like the kind of problems that are found on IQ tests, and the numeric value one only shows that the individual who answered 7 is unable to distinguish between an abstract question and a personal question; this is not differing cultural values, this is either a severe education deficit, or a problematic cognitive impairement. Presenting this as "cultural bias" is tantamount to saying that abstract reasoning is a white people thing!


I don't understand what exactly you are trying to argue in the rest of your posts. Yes, some of the things valued by modern society are arbitrary and culturally bound. But many aren't: earning enough money to live decently, having access to healthcare, being free from frequent run ins with the police, living in a safe environment… those aren't "white people value", those are things everyone desire, and that happen to be also correlated with IQ. It sounds almost like you're arguing that black people are already fully succeful by black cultural criteria, really the high crime rate, high death rate, high unemployment rate, high poverty rate, low access to healthcare and education, low wages, those are only problematic according to subjective white people cultural criteria, and black people are perfectly fine actually!

[I know this isn't what you're actually arguing: I'm saying I don't understand what you're actually arguing, and you really need to clarify]

buz
07-13-2015, 04:08 AM
What I'm really trying to know when I ask if "white people are privileged" and "white people do better" are equivalent propositions, is if all systematic outcome differences between two groups is always to be analysed as a product of privilege (in which case the two propositions are equivalent) or if there can be some systematic outcome differences between two groups that can't be analysed as a product of privilege (in which case the two propositions aren't equivalent) —in the latter case, I would appreciate examples too.

To me it is way oversimplistic to say white privilege-->better outcomes for white people.

Saying that something is there is not to say that other factors do not come into play, factors that may even negate the effect of privilege in terms of the type of measurable outcomes you're talking about. But that doesn't mean privilege was never there. If I get bitten by a cobra, the direct outcome of that might be death. But if I get medical intervention and antivenom, and I survive, I don't die. But my not dying doesn't mean the cobra didn't bite me.


Buzhidao > I do think that in light of a claim as big as "white people benefit from systemic privilege in all aspects of their life",

I don't know if I can agree with that statement in its entirety.


having solid empirical evidence to back it up is not an optional luxury —even if the evidence has to be indirect. We may indeed not be able to directly measure psychological distress, but we can certainly observe and measure numerous consequences of it, from substance absuse to suicide rate to psychological symptoms and so on.


Okay, symptoms: You can count whitewashed book covers, you can compare incarceration rates, you can compare death-by-cop, you can count white actors in movies, you can hang around various groups of white people and mark down how often they say something like "well THEY'RE the ones who won't let go of this racism thing; WE've moved past it," you can count how many art history textbooks spend the same length of text on Mannerism as the entirety of African art, and I don't know how many other things. You can count tons of stuff. That's what I mean by you can't have ONE index that says "this measures privilege" because, in my view, it does not work that way.

As for other symptoms, they may not be physically expressed in an objective way. Like, pain. If someone says they are in pain you don't say "all right well we're going to have to have you prove it in an observable fashion, otherwise, we don't believe you." There are physiological indicators, but someone's increase in respiratory rate is not a measure of pain.

Measuring outcomes is not a universal way of determining the existence of things, nor what caused the things. You can have a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia and never develop schizophrenia. You can have toxoplasmosis and not experience symptoms. You can be depressed and seem normal to everyone else. Likewise, you can be dead and there may be tons of things that caused your deadness in conjunction. You can become a ladle-wielding serial killer (because killing with knives is too easy) and there can be many things in your life that lead up to the moment you decided you liked smashing peoples' skulls with bowl-shaped spoons, and even some things that worked against those influences and simply lost out in terms of outcome. IF that is even the point at which you measure the outcome.

There is "evidence" but that's not the same as "privilege causes specific outcomes as measured by a single metric." I see the video of police throwing a black girl down to the ground and waving a gun around at unarmed kids as evidence; I see people worrying that their heritage and names and religions will be impediments to them in this society as evidence. Alone, in single instances, it might mean nothing, but taken together, patterns can be seen, and A Thing can be guessed at without saying that Thing definitely causes a certain result.

White people (or however-elsely-privileged-people) who have not been "successful" in terms of things like wealth and safety and health care access still experience privilege. It may not help them a hell of a lot in terms of measurable indices that you've mentioned, but it exists. (http://occupywallstreet.net/story/explaining-white-privilege-broke-white-person)

Basically, I disagree that outcome=influence.

Ken
07-13-2015, 04:18 AM
Well, it is good there are smart people or helicopters about ;-) They've given us most all of the inventions we enjoy and often take for granted. Plus, they're as nice as the next fellow. The IQ tests are what I don't particularly care for. But who's to say. It's just my opinion. What do I know? G'luck with putting that acumen of yours to good purpose !

Liosse de Velishaf
07-13-2015, 04:25 AM
I was asked the definition of "island" on an IQ test, once. Does that fit your idea of the kind of question likely to be on an IQ test?

Again, you seem to be conflating the concept of privilege with outcomes. Privilege is an inequality of opportunity issue, not an inequality of outcome issue. Nor are cultural values directly equivalent to the things you've listed, which again are outcomes. Your argument appears to be that black people have worse outcomes because they have worse outcomes. An equally confusing argument as the one you mistakenly assume I (and perhaps others) are making.


Here's how opportunity relates to outcome--again!--:

You have a starting point. That's part of opportunity. You have your individual ability. Then you have levers you can exert effort on using your starting point and your individual ability. To say someone has privilege is to say they have a superior starting point and/or superior levers to leverage (wink) with their personal ability and starting point. If two people sit in soapbox cars on a hill, each hoping to reach as high as possible on an opposing hill, the one with the higher starting position is going to be able to get higher up the other hill because their position gives them more potential energy. There's your starting point inequality. Now imagine there are two people with levers, hoping to lift the most weight. They are equally strong. But the person with the longer lever is going to be able to lift more weight.

kuwisdelu
07-13-2015, 04:29 AM
First of all, NighSwan, the paper you linked is from 1996. That's ancient.

Second of all, they refer to language, race of the test giver, and length of the test as sources of cultural bias. These are all referring to how the test is administered, not the actual cultural value judgment of what is measured. What is being measured is not changed, only how it is measured.

To that extent, yes, some things like abstract reasoning are indeed more valued by Western culture than in other cultures. In fact, that's actually a great example of how many are trying to change how math and science are taught to better reach underrepresented populations. You can teach the same math skills in abstract and more concrete, practical ways. Many people in general respond better to the latter, but it is particularly important in many underrepresented communities (such as Native American communities, which is where I am coming from).

IQ can in some ways be viewed as an attempt to evaluate learning potential. But it in fact only represents certain ways of learning. If the end goal is not to achieve a high IQ, but to teach good math and science skills (for example, among other types of skills and knowledge), then it's important to consider alternative ways they can be taught (e.g. abstract vs practical).

Furthermore, you point to things like "money" and "healthcare" and "police" as universal desires. But these too are highly influenced by culture. In fact, the latter two are very modern inventions, and many cultures did not even historically use money or value wealth, including my own. That these are so desirable is in many ways due to modern civilization and Western culture.

Lillith1991
07-13-2015, 04:36 AM
I'll be completely blunt, TheNighSwan. Even if we did present what is very clear evidence of what you're asking, I personally doubt it would be accepted as evidence by you. You seem determined that there is no racial component to privillege, and what there is is very small if it does exist. Both assumptions are dead wrong.

For example, as Liose stated, the reason Black students do worse on tests is because we are taught to question things instead of just accepting facts with no questions asked. And this was actually something that started during slavery for us, we had to be able to silently question our masters orders and weigh them on a scale from deadly to unpleasant to something we didn't mind doing. If we found out our master was homosexual for example, something illegal in most of the states from their founding to mid-20th century. We then had to choose whether to keep our mouths shut or tell someone of authority, and into this decission went how it would affect us,.as well as if we would even be believed.

On a more neutral note, White privillege is to me akin to Christian privillege. Our calender is Christian instead of Muslim or some other form of calender. The school year and working worlds schedueled holidays are centered around a Christian calender. As a society, Biblical names are part default only as long as the angelicanized prounciation and spelling is used, even though the Hebrew way of saying names like Micheal and Rachel are much much older. And so it is with White privillege, our society is made to be more accomadating for White Christians.

kuwisdelu
07-13-2015, 04:42 AM
Well, there's also the underserved in education part.

But I guess that's not cultural bias, just plain ol' racism.

frimble3
07-13-2015, 04:46 AM
Specifically related to IQ testing, and admitting that this is anecdotal, I have no linkage: The people who do well on IQ tests are the people who do well on tests.
Two people, equally intelligent, take a test: one sees it as just another chore, plugs away and does okay. The other either magnifies the importance of the test and panics, or doesn't handle pressure well and panics. In either case, Other does poorly.
Taking tests is a learned skill itself, and some people pick it up faster than others.
You can overthink the answers, you can waste too much time on an individual question, you can look down that long list of questions and just give up.

As for scoring high on an IQ test as a predictor of future success, that's one factor. How about determination, ability to apply that intelligence to actual life, or ability to get along with others?

Darron
07-13-2015, 04:50 AM
The two examples you give aren't really convincing: the "tree" one doesn't really look like the kind of problems that are found on IQ tests, and the numeric value one only shows that the individual who answered 7 is unable to distinguish between an abstract question and a personal question; this is not differing cultural values, this is either a severe education deficit, or a problematic cognitive impairement. Presenting this as "cultural bias" is tantamount to saying that abstract reasoning is a white people thing!

I disagree that they two statements are the same and I this isn't the first time you aren't seeing the differences between the two. Very few people are naturally good at those reasoning types of tests, particularly if your time to solve them is tied to your score. More practice with challenging questions sharpens the mind.


I don't understand what exactly you are trying to argue in the rest of your posts. Yes, some of the things valued by modern society are arbitrary and culturally bound. But many aren't: earning enough money to live decently, having access to healthcare, being free from frequent run ins with the police, living in a safe environment… those aren't "white people value", those are things everyone desire, and that happen to be also correlated with IQ. It sounds almost like you're arguing that black people are already fully succeful by black cultural criteria, really the high crime rate, high death rate, high unemployment rate, high poverty rate, low access to healthcare and education, low wages, those are only problematic according to subjective white people cultural criteria, and black people are perfectly fine actually!

[I know this isn't what you're actually arguing: I'm saying I don't understand what you're actually arguing, and you really need to clarify]

Please look at what I placed in bold. Having a higher IQ doesn't make you less likely to be intimidated or profiled by the police. Being white does. Yes, those are things everyone wants and everyone strives to have (and with proper effort should have). However, there are barriers in society that keep everyone from having those things and some cultures have significantly more barriers than others.

Example:
In 2015, a black mother and father both work lower end jobs at different shifts because they didn't receive a quality education from their "neighborhood school" (often called modern day segregation). Since both are often away, they leave their son with grandma who doesn't see very well. Grandma pacifies the child and sticks him in front of a tv everyday until he's old enough to send to school (free daycare).
That boy is starting with hardly any skills in terms of reading and writing that he didn't pick up off hand from spare pencils and papers he found around the house. This boy can only sight read the most common words like his name and common objects. He is given help, but falls behind others in the class who had parents that read to them and practiced writing before kindergarten.
Despite his gains he is placed in a remedial course but doesn't lose faith that he can catch up. By the 4th grade, he is up to a 2nd grade reading level because his teacher is giving him easier material (or he's still in that slower class). 4th grade is where school books go from narratives to more like a text with figures and chapters (Google the 4th grade reading gap). This student now is lost in a sea of vocab he isn't aware of and working overtime to avoid falling even further behind. Since his parents are still working very often, his only help is the subsidized after school program where he is one of forty kids vying for the attention of two adults. Other students aren't struggling as much because they have parents at home who are still talking to them and practicing skills with them. To make matters worse, one of the parents loses a job and now they are struggling to cover rent and the boy needs to go to school extra early to have the free breakfast and gets less sleep.
By the time he gets to the 9th grade he is a full 2 grades comprehension-wise behind and has not passed at least one of his state's standardized tests. Since high school essentially places you on a track based on your grades in 8th/9th grade the highest this student can hope to see is an honor's English and maybe Algebra 2 if he school forces him to take it because they want all students to be "college ready" whether the students have the skills or not.
None of this takes into account how friendships work or his personal life outside of school (job to earn money for clothes and food? that's the hiring bias again that he loses out to a white peer looking to earn gas money for the car his parents gave him since the white student has reliable transportation).
This hypothetical student, which isn't a rare case, has not had the chance to take classes that push him and without a good counselor to make sure he perseveres with graduating he can end up as another disadvantage student that the educational system failed. The SAT/ACT, IQ, or AFQT is going to say he isn't as capable because he hasn't had the same opportunity or time to practice.
That isn't the same as whites do better, just have better circumstances.

Liosse de Velishaf
07-13-2015, 04:53 AM
Haha, let's not even get started on religious privilege and the measurements thereof. I could rant on that for days.


I believe in privilege theory because I have seen it in action. As a white middle class straight guy with a high IQ, I'm pretty much only lacking religious privilege. I can't count the times I've said or done something, and a less privileged person has shown me, in various ways, how privilege I am to be able to say or do or assume things that to me were only the way things obviously worked.

As a note, two of the three highest IQs in my year in high school were black kids. They had IQs on the WISC around 145, which is at or near the top .13% of the population. These were the kids most engaged in education the way the majority of white kids in my school were engaged in their educations. The less engaged kids, of both races, surprisingly had lower scores.

One of them got horrible scores on standardized tests, if that means anything.

Lillith1991
07-13-2015, 04:53 AM
Well, there's also the underserved in education part.

But I guess that's not cultural bias, just plain ol' racism.

I would say it is plain ol' racism for sure. The idea is that Black people are less inteligent because they question and challenge things when White people are less likely to and as a result do worse on tests. This of course reinforces Black people as less inteligent, which means people don't want to work with African American values to create a system that serves both White and Black people well.

kuwisdelu
07-13-2015, 04:56 AM
I would say it is plain ol' racism for sure. The idea is that Black people are less inteligent because they question and challenge things when White people are less likely to and as a result do worse on tests. This of course reinforces Black people as less inteligent, which means people don't want to work with African American values to create a system that serves both White and Black people well.

You may be giving people too much credit. I don't think think it's quite so nuanced. I think it's often just the idea is Black people (et al.) are less intelligent.

Lillith1991
07-13-2015, 05:03 AM
You may be giving people too much credit. I don't think think it's quite so nuanced. I think it's often just the idea is Black people (et al.) are less intelligent.

There's that too, but I'm more explaining why even a middle class Black kid may do worse on tests all things being equal, to a White peer and how that then reinforces the stereotype.

bombergirl69
07-13-2015, 05:14 AM
I guess the argument would be that greater access to resources leads to richer experiences leads to a great fund of experience based knowledge.

Cognitive processing speed is NOT a universally valued construct, and that will definitely have scoring consequences (this is certainly not the variable that explains everything but simply an example). Many subtests are timed.

But in addition to the "What are we measuring?" question, we have to ask, "How do we measure it?" or "What influences performance?" and to that last question there are many theories. The most extensive look at this issue is Christopher Jencks The Black White Test Score Gap, from 1998 or so. Old, but really very, very comprehensive and data driven (and NOT agenda driven) - things like teacher experience, classroom size, race of teacher (same or different), race of tester (same or different), having to put down one's race on the test- the book explores all of these.

IQ tests certainly can tell us stuff that's helpful about an individual's intellectual functioning. It's the generalizing that is usually inappropriate. That's why when we write up testing, we don't say, "So John's like a really smart guy." We note the specific test (which we have already checked was normed on the population of which John is a part), what the test measures, and then what John's scores were, usually the raw score and the percentile. And the Full scale IQ is usually the last score reported becsuse if there is too much scatter in the index scores the FSIQ isn't meaningful anyway. Then we talk about what the results actually mean - John's score of `16, two standard deviations above average, is in the superior range and indicates, or is a standard deviation below average, etc. One could say that John demonstrates an excellent understanding of social expectations, so that his inability to conform his behavior to societal norms is likely characterological in nature. Or he has a poor working memory, or inefficient learning strategies, or poor concentration or little perseverance or whatever. All helpful. Also great when there has been a TBI, or anoxic event or something, to get a sense of the impact (there'd be a battery for that). People hate IQ tests because of how they get misinterpreted.

kuwisdelu
07-13-2015, 05:25 AM
Incidentally, whenever I have been administered an IQ test by a licensed professional, they have generally been quite good about interpreting the score and subscores, and also taking into account personal interactions with me. But when we view raw scores simply as data apart from context, that is when things get very dangerous, which is an everpresent problem people in my profession encounter from other "data scientists" in all fields.

bombergirl69
07-13-2015, 05:27 AM
The two examples you give aren't really convincing: the "tree" one doesn't really look like the kind of problems that are found on IQ tests, and the numeric value one only shows that the individual who answered 7 is unable to distinguish between an abstract question and a personal question; this is not differing cultural values, this is either a severe education deficit, or a problematic cognitive impairement. Presenting this as "cultural bias" is tantamount to saying that abstract reasoning is a white people thing!


What? So, not to be rude at all, but you might want to learn a bit about various types of IQ tests. The Wechsler system (WAIS) does indeed ask questions about social conventions. Not that particular one but social convention in general. Why do people do this (give at least two reasons), what is the thing to do when this happens, etc. That is definitely a subtest!

And people do in fact come up with alternative patterns. It will not help them in the scoring but should be noted by the tester. In the old versions, we had subtest where people had to put cards in theright order to tell a story. There was right way, then a less right way, then wrong. But sometimes people did come up with really interesting stories (which should also be noted). It may be a deficit in social reasoning but it may also be highly creative, or an alternative cultural explanation.

And yes, there is a vocabulary section. THe words start fairly easy then get hard in a hurry.

Layla Nahar
07-13-2015, 06:55 AM
What do the tests accomplish anyway other than allowing some to feel superior to others. (My two cents.)

^Two cents of gold!

C.bronco
07-13-2015, 07:15 AM
It's my experience that parents who place a high value on education have children who do as well. IQ tests measure ability to make connections, and part of that is nurture, part is nature.

aruna
07-13-2015, 07:16 AM
I think IQ is somewhat meaningful, in that someone who tests with a high IQ is almost certainly "smarter" (for some value of smart) than someone who does not.
.

No, it's not just skills. It's a completely different art of perception that cannot be learned unless you grew up with it, got it from the cradle so to speak. I different kind of "mind" and ability to navigate the world, based more on acute sensory navigation rather than rational thought. I can't even describe it accurately, because the words we use are not accurate enough.

kuwisdelu
07-13-2015, 07:20 AM
It's my experience that parents who place a high value on education have children who do as well. IQ tests measure ability to make connections, and part of that is nurture, part is nature.

Very specific kinds of connections, though.

Not all kinds of connections are valued equally.

C.bronco
07-13-2015, 07:24 AM
My favorite description of genius is the ability to make connections that others do not make.

blacbird
07-13-2015, 09:19 AM
Unabomber Ted Kaczynski was by IQ standards a major genius, with an IQ score somewhere north of 160. He published some serious original mathematical proofs in major academic math journals.

And spent two decades constructing brilliantly original bombs and mailing them to unsuspecting targets, killing three and injuring many others.

The point of this branched-off thread escapes me. But I don't have a 160 IQ so . . .

caw

frimble3
07-13-2015, 12:03 PM
Yup. Being intelligent doesn't necessarily make you a better adequate human being.

- - - Updated - - -

SomethingOrOther
07-13-2015, 12:19 PM
Those abstract things you mention like pattern recognition absolutely rely on on cultural perspective and expectations.

For example, given the sequence 2,4,6, give the number that comes next.

You and I might say "8", because we know what the cultural expectations of that kind of question are.

Someone else might say "7, because 2 is the number of children I have, 4 is the number of children my sister has, 6 is the number of children my younger older brother has, and 7 is the number of children my older older brother has."

That's a perfectly valid pattern, but of course it would be marked wrong.


Impromptu test question for you. Complete the following pattern:

2 4 6 8 48 80264 _____

EMaree
07-13-2015, 12:52 PM
I've really, truly have never met an adult who takes the IQ test seriously. This thread has been an eye-opener.

autumnleaf
07-13-2015, 01:13 PM
IQ tests have their uses. They predict quite well how quickly a child will learn certain types of school tasks such as reading and mathematics. If child scores a low IQ, that's a sign that the child might have difficulties with schoolwork and need extra support. Whereas a child with a high IQ might be bored by regular schoolwork and need extra challenges. Outside of a school environment, IQ has less meaning.

Albedo
07-13-2015, 01:42 PM
One day I will be on an interview panel when one of those legendary CVs that states the applicant's IQ will come up. And then much fun will be had.

Ravioli
07-13-2015, 02:31 PM
IQ doesn't mean much as a measure of "intelligence", however IQ is a really good predictor of status; high IQ is strongly correlated with high salary, good job, stable and healthy life and so on, while low IQ is strongly correlated with poverty, unstable job, criminality, drug use, teen pregnancy and so on.
Well, don't all of those factors, for better or for worse, reinforce the notion that IQ measures intelligence? After all, good jobs, healthy life etc. usually require some wit. Whereas crime (or rather, getting caught), falling for drugs while everyone knows what they do to you, and not knowing how to use a condom (rape not included here), require a severe lack of wit.
I'm not gonna go into racial implications because a black person IS currentply POTus, but I reject 100% that IQ isn't all about intelligence. The ways to measure IQ may be questionable, but I still don't believe a smart person will score 100 if tested under adequate circumstances (fair time limits, stress-free circumstance, mother tongue).

bombergirl69
07-13-2015, 02:47 PM
Ha! Putting an IQ on a CV???? OMG! On the other hand, I guess I could skip the personality testing on that person- pretty diagnostic right there!
Never heard of that but it's crazy! Actually kind of funny- I wonder if people will start putting their MMPI profile scores on their CVs...likely more informative!!! ;)

IQ tests can be very helpful. It's good to know how people learn new information and how they retain what they know (if they do). Getting a picture of someone's functioning in this domain can be extremely helpful- how efficient they are, how they use past knowledge. That's why tests look at different areas, i.e., processing speed, working memory, attention. I would not blame the test because it was misused! And anyone who gives a test knows that many, many factors can influence performance.

And I can't think of any competent practitioner who could not acknowledge the influence of culture in so many ways! Even the value a society places on something like abstract reasoning varies. Not every culture promotes lots of "what if" kinds of contemplation. We just need to know the limits of what we're doing, so we don't speak to stuff we don't know. Just because something is culture bound doesn't mean it has no useful purpose.

So sure, for kids having trouble in school, for adults having various issues that could be related to intellectual functioning, yes, learning about this is very helpful. School performance problems, mental health problems, head injuries, work-related issues, failure to complete a CPS treatment plan, behavioral medicine issues, compliance on parole, a range of issues can-can, not necessarily will- include a test of intellectual functioning. A good practitioner gets a clear referral question then finds the tools (many) to answer it.

And really, of course tests of intellectual functioning are going to correlate with other measures because over the years, that's what we've designed them to do! A good test has good predictive validity. So, we dump questions/tasks that don't tell us much. As we refine a testing instrument, it likely gets better and better. That's why we use it. If a test didn't correlate with anything, we'd never give it (one hopes)

But, again, we have to know what we're talking about, and speak to that issue. Any test has limitations and we need to remember what those are!!

Layla Nahar
07-13-2015, 04:15 PM
What do the tests accomplish anyway other than allowing some to feel superior to others. (My two cents.)

^Two cents of gold!

Amadan
07-13-2015, 05:05 PM
Yeah, who the hell puts their IQ on a CV?

Usher
07-13-2015, 05:22 PM
I've really, truly have never met an adult who takes the IQ test seriously. This thread has been an eye-opener.

As an adult no. As a child it changed my life. I went from the untidy thick-as-pigshit kid who could read well beyond anyone else in class, but struggled to write (that made all the other subjects harder because I couldn't write fast enough), fell over all the time, ate their lunch too slow so never got time to play, couldn't tie their shoelaces etc to one people were prepared to be more patient with. I went from being stuck doing the tasks to easy for my brain to ones that didn't challenge but were more worthwhile.


Ha! Putting an IQ on a CV???? OMG! On the other hand, I guess I could skip the personality testing on that person- pretty diagnostic right there!

Would I put mine on a CV - no. But I think this highlights another an issue...
Why should someone with a high IQ be ashamed of it? Why is intelligence laughed at and not really valued?

Intelligence especially outside of the academic world is viewed with suspicion. As a child I was precocious just for being myself and as an adult I find that word has been replaced by accusations of lying when I mention how fast I did a certain academic or even physical test.

Take cultural exceptions into account, make the tests fairer etc but why denigrate others who do well within the current framework? Fairness is about giving everyone a level playing field but at present highly intelligent but not a genius struggle in a lot of societies which see them as pain arse and not worth the bother. Many do poorly because they switch off at school and actually go unnoticed.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 05:27 PM
Yeah, who the hell puts their IQ on a CV?

I never saw that, but I did once see a recent law school grad put his LSAT score on his resume.

I wanted to call the guy and say "dude. The sole purpose of the score was to help get you into a decent law school. Which it did. Now all anyone cares about is the name of your law school and your transcript." Instead I just consigned the resume to the circular file. He should have bothered to look into what does and doesn't belong on a resume, and if he can't be bothered...

Albedo
07-13-2015, 05:45 PM
I never saw that, but I did once see a recent law school grad put his LSAT score on his resume.

I wanted to call the guy and say "dude. The sole purpose of the score was to help get you into a decent law school. Which it did. Now all anyone cares about is the name of your law school and your transcript." Instead I just consigned the resume to the circular file. He should have bothered to look into what does and doesn't belong on a resume, and if he can't be bothered...

Probably the same clod who (and I wasn't on this panel, but) emailed his resume and cover letter as a Word file with Show Changes active, including his various notations along the lines of "insert any old shit here" and "invent more legit sounding references".

I've heard of people putting all sorts of odd stuff on CVs. Height and weight, blood type, Myers-Briggs score ... I was always taught that a professional CV should be a thing of minimalist beauty. Mine is, right down to the typeface. I only put my gender on it because I've got a gender-neutral name and I'm sick to the fucking gills of getting 'we thought we were interviewing a girl' looks. Otherwise it's Name - Phone - Email - Qualifications - Education (university level only) - Employment History - Skills - References. All in 12 point Georgia cos I'm a boring twat.

Amadan
07-13-2015, 05:49 PM
Why should someone with a high IQ be ashamed of it? Why is intelligence laughed at and not really valued?

Um, that was not the point.

I have a genius-level IQ. I almost never mention it, because it means precisely nothing in almost any context, except for those people who think it proves they're "smart" and therefore drop their IQs in a pathetic attempt to impress. Putting my IQ (or SAT scores, or GRE scores, or whatever) on a resume would be... kind of sad.

It's like bragging that you are a member of Mensa*. Only people who feel a need to compensate for something or have something to prove mention it.

(* I'm not a member of Mensa, because I never saw the point. I've never found that a group of high-IQ people is more or less likely to be a group of people I want to hang around with. My parents are members, and say they throw pretty good parties, though.)

asroc
07-13-2015, 05:55 PM
Yeah, who the hell puts their IQ on a CV?

Probably the same people who have to bring theirs up every time the topic is mentioned.

"Oh yes, I got tested and it turns out my IQ is 187, which really good, by the way, but of course I don't believe in IQ as an absolute measure of intelligence. You can be very smart and have a low IQ. Why, one of my best friends is so talented with his hands and his IQ is much lower than mine (187, in case I didn't mention it.) I can be stupid too, despite my genius-level IQ (187, look, I got it on paper!)"

ETA: Huh. Uncanny.

Albedo
07-13-2015, 06:00 PM
Um, that was not the point.

I have a genius-level IQ. I almost never mention it, because it means precisely nothing in almost any context, except for those people who think it proves they're "smart" and therefore drop their IQs in a pathetic attempt to impress. Putting my IQ (or SAT scores, or GRE scores, or whatever) on a resume would be... kind of sad.

It's like bragging that you are a member of Mensa*. Only people who feel a need to compensate for something or have something to prove mention it.

(* I'm not a member of Mensa, because I never saw the point. I've never found that a group of high-IQ people is more or less likely to be a group of people I want to hang around with. My parents are members, and say they throw pretty good parties, though.)

Yes. Basically, proving your smartness on your CV is a matter of Show, don't Tell. No-one cares what you got on an IQ test. How did you put your brains to good use?

Amadan
07-13-2015, 06:05 PM
Probably the same people who have to bring theirs up every time the topic is mentioned.

"Oh yes, I got tested and it turns out my IQ is 187, which really good, by the way, but of course I don't believe in IQ as an absolute measure of intelligence. You can be very smart and have a low IQ. Why, one of my best friends is so talented with his hands and his IQ is much lower than mine (187, in case I didn't mention it.) I can be stupid too, despite my genius-level IQ (187, look, I got it on paper!)"

ETA: Huh. Uncanny.

Hey now. I only mentioned it now, because...


You knew me in middle school, didn't you?


Seriously, it's easier when you're young and inexperienced to see a high IQ as a point of pride.

It takes actual experience (realizing that yes, your IQ is not just theoretically meaningless but actually and concretely meaningless) to knock that out of you.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 06:37 PM
I prefer to rely on my charm. Of course, it wouldn't be appropriate to list that on my resume, so I discuss it at length in my cover letter.

asroc
07-13-2015, 06:47 PM
Hey now. I only mentioned it now, because...


You knew me in middle school, didn't you?


Seriously, it's easier when you're young and inexperienced to see a high IQ as a point of pride.

It takes actual experience (realizing that yes, your IQ is not just theoretically meaningless but actually and concretely meaningless) to knock that out of you.

I understand, I just find it entertaining. I don't think I've ever seen an internet thread about IQ where there wasn't at least one person trying to sneak in their score. Strangely enough this behavior seems to be restricted to people with a self-reported IQ of at least 130 only. I've never seen anyone try to explain why their 95 IQ is meaningless.

kuwisdelu
07-13-2015, 06:48 PM
Hey now. I only mentioned it now, because...


You knew me in middle school, didn't you?


Seriously, it's easier when you're young and inexperienced to see a high IQ as a point of pride.

It takes actual experience (realizing that yes, your IQ is not just theoretically meaningless but actually and concretely meaningless) to knock that out of you.

That's probably why my parents hid my IQ from me.

Usher
07-13-2015, 06:49 PM
Um, that was not the point.
I have a genius-level IQ. I almost never mention it, because it means precisely nothing in almost any context, except for those people who think it proves they're "smart" and therefore drop their IQs in a pathetic attempt to impress. Putting my IQ (or SAT scores, or GRE scores, or whatever) on a resume would be... kind of sad.

But why if you're not ashamed of it or actually been trained to believe it means nothing? Because we are trained by society to believe exactly that. If you are that bit more intelligent then society expects you to place it under a burkha so you don't offend others. Whilst I don't often mention my IQ it does prove I am smart and I am not ashamed of it and see nothing wrong with it.

It's like someone asking Andy Murray what he does for a living and he mentions everything except the tennis.

Because actually if it's a position that requires further training it is an indication to your potential to pick that training up and how quickly you will grasp it.

kuwisdelu
07-13-2015, 06:49 PM
I prefer to rely on my charm. Of course, it wouldn't be appropriate to list that on my resume, so I discuss it at length in my cover letter.

If they ever get impressive enough. I'll have to figure out how to sneak my race PR's onto my CV.

Amadan
07-13-2015, 06:56 PM
But why if you're not ashamed of it or actually been trained to believe it means nothing?

I don't think my intelligence means nothing. I think my IQ score means nothing.


Because we are trained by society to believe exactly that. If you are that bit more intelligent then society expects you to place it under a burkha so you don't offend others.

Do you live in a Kurt Vonnegut story?


Whilst I don't often mention my IQ it does prove I am smart and I am not ashamed of it and see nothing wrong with it.

No, it doesn't. What you can demonstrably do proves you are smart.

kuwisdelu
07-13-2015, 06:59 PM
Should I put my IQ in a query letter?

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 07:02 PM
I do not find that I need to mention my IQ score for people to realize i'm intelligent.

Amadan
07-13-2015, 07:02 PM
Should I put my IQ in a query letter?

Only if it's above 130.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 07:02 PM
Should I put my IQ in a query letter?

Yes. And your race scores. And a photo of your naked ass balancing a champagne glass.

asroc
07-13-2015, 07:04 PM
But why if you're not ashamed of it or actually been trained to believe it means nothing? Because we are trained by society to believe exactly that. If you are that bit more intelligent then society expects you to place it under a burkha so you don't offend others. Whilst I don't often mention my IQ it does prove I am smart and I am not ashamed of it and see nothing wrong with it.

It's like someone asking Andy Murray what he does for a living and he mentions everything except the tennis.

Because actually if it's a position that requires further training it is an indication to your potential to pick that training up and how quickly you will grasp it.

Because just about the only situation in today's society where you're legitimately expected to showcase your good qualities is during a job interview. And your ability to pick up new material would be far better illustrated by actual evidence (completed degree, extra certifications and so forth), rather than IQ which, at best, only shows potential. Not to mention most employers will probably know that people of average intelligence who work hard may easily produce better results than someone who's smart but lazy.

I can't really think of any other situation where bringing up your own IQ wouldn't sound like bragging. If you ask Andy Murray what he does he'll probably say he's a tennis player. I doubt he's going to say he's the best tennis player in the world, because that's kind of tacky.

kuwisdelu
07-13-2015, 07:08 PM
Yes. And your race scores. And a photo of your naked ass balancing a champagne glass.

I can't tell if you're messing with me or not.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 07:10 PM
I can't tell if you're messing with me or not.

That's because I'm so goddamn bright.

Usher
07-13-2015, 07:14 PM
I can't really think of any other situation where bringing up your own IQ wouldn't sound like bragging.

Why is saying you are good at something bragging or when the conversation arises in a thread like this saying actually I do have a high IQ and this what it gives me in my life...? I've never understood that.

If Andy Murray was seeded number one and said he was the best tennis player in the world why would it be tacky?

My issue is with insisting everybody be distinctly average at everything and often limiting what they do as a result Maybe you can shine in one area. The child who puts their hand up to answer all the questions is a swat, teacher's pet etc Why should that child feel a need to hide that actually they do know most of the answers and get to them quickly?

In most other areas like sport, art, woodwork etc when a talent is spotted it is nurtured. But then you get the singers and performers who were told not to dream.

Having said that a lot of people do think I'm stupid and an idiot. It's a lot of fun when it bites them on the arse.

Cyia
07-13-2015, 07:18 PM
IQ had it's purpose corrupted, as did standardized tests. The tests were meant to prove that given the opportunity college-minded students in impoverished and/or heavily minority areas could test on par with students in more affluent / legacy / predominantly white areas. It was meant to cut screening policies at the ivies off at the knees. Now it's the end-all, be-all of school funding.

IQ still means little to nothing in the real world. Several people on this board test in the genius range, I'm one of them, and it still means nothing. Ability without education still won't get you the right answers on a test because you don't have the context to solve the questions. You can't compare a watermelon to a mango if you've never seen a mango. You can't find the similarities in root words if you've never studied them. That has nothing to do with intelligence. A math genius who has never been exposed to ideas beyond simple addition and subtraction still won't know the rules of calculus to apply them if you set a calculus problem in front of them. They won't know what the symbols mean.

One of the major players on this board (I won't use their name because they haven't yet posted in this thread, but they have posted about their IQ scores elsewhere on the board before) could give you the best possible illustration of why IQ matters so little in the real world. This individual's scores were exceptionally low, but they excel at things in the real world that most of us couldn't even attempt to do with any success.

asroc
07-13-2015, 07:19 PM
Show, don't tell.

Amadan
07-13-2015, 07:20 PM
Why is saying you are good at something bragging or when the conversation arises in a thread like this saying actually I do have a high IQ and this what it gives me in my life...? I've never understood that.

Because having a high IQ does not make you good at anything. At best, it suggests you have the potential to be good at some things.

It's like saying "I am tall, therefore I'm a good basketball player."

(I think asroc was being a little unfair, because when talking about the meaningfulness or lack thereof of IQ scores, yes, naturally people are inclined to mention theirs in that context, because it's relevant.)



My issue is with insisting everybody be distinctly average at everything and often limiting what they do as a result The child who puts their hand up to answer all the questions is a swat, teacher's pet etc Why should that child feel a need to hide that actually they do know most of the answers and get to them quickly?

I'm sorry if this has been your experience, but I think you are personalizing your own experience and assuming that the whole world hates smart people. It does not. But it does tend to be hard on smart people who think asserting their smartness should garner them respect.

kuwisdelu
07-13-2015, 07:22 PM
That's because I'm so goddamn bright.

If you ever need a new job, the bulb in my lamp is getting kind of flickery.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 07:31 PM
Why is saying you are good at something bragging or when the conversation arises in a thread like this saying actually I do have a high IQ and this what it gives me in my life...? I've never understood that.

If Andy Murray was seeded number one and said he was the best tennis player in the world why would it be tacky?

My issue is with insisting everybody be distinctly average at everything and often limiting what they do as a result Maybe you can shine in one area. The child who puts their hand up to answer all the questions is a swat, teacher's pet etc Why should that child feel a need to hide that actually they do know most of the answers and get to them quickly?

In most other areas like sport, art, woodwork etc when a talent is spotted it is nurtured. But then you get the singers and performers who were told not to dream.

I think for most purposes, high intelligence is something it's best to let others determine on their own -- like looks, charm, and wit. Generally speaking, in most conversations, there's no point in bringing it up and if you really possess those desirable attributes, people will pick up on it.

I understand what you're getting at, to some extent -- but I find it is largely applicable to gifted children. Sometimes teachers don't know what to do with them, try to squash them down, etc. Since I've reached adulthood, however, I haven't found intelligence to be a disadvantage anywhere except possibly in the dating arena.

asroc
07-13-2015, 07:32 PM
(I think asroc was being a little unfair, because when talking about the meaningfulness or lack thereof of IQ scores, yes, naturally people are inclined to mention theirs in that context, because it's relevant.)

Yeah, that's probably true. (Although again, only people with an IQ of 130 and up seem to feel it's relevant... (Maybe I'm just jealous. I don't know my IQ.))


Why is saying you are good at something bragging or when the conversation arises in a thread like this saying actually I do have a high IQ and this what it gives me in my life...? I've never understood that.

If Andy Murray was seeded number one and said he was the best tennis player in the world why would it be tacky?

My issue is with insisting everybody be distinctly average at everything and often limiting what they do as a result Maybe you can shine in one area. The child who puts their hand up to answer all the questions is a swat, teacher's pet etc Why should that child feel a need to hide that actually they do know most of the answers and get to them quickly?

In most other areas like sport, art, woodwork etc when a talent is spotted it is nurtured. But then you get the singers and performers who were told not to dream.

Having said that a lot of people do think I'm stupid and an idiot. It's a lot of fun when it bites them on the arse.

Kids giving the right answers in school, athletes, artists etc. are different. They're actually doing something. It's fine to be proud of your trophies or straight-A transcript because those are things you've actually achieved. A high IQ isn't an achievement, it's just an attribute. Go do something with your potential. Then you can at least brag about something of substance.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 07:33 PM
If you ever need a new job, the bulb in my lamp is getting kind of flickery.

You might need a special shade to shield you from my brilliance.

Jamesaritchie
07-13-2015, 07:37 PM
IQ most certainly does measure intelligence. We have a hundred years of undeniable scientific proof that this is so.

As for blacks versus whites on an IQ test, it means little. No matter what kind of group you come up with, it will have a variance from any other group. Group IQ simply doesn't matter. Only individual IQ gets anyone anywhere, and when measured on an individual level, and at the same educational level, the differences in black and white IQ scores are much closer. Whites still come out on top, just as whites come in under at least two other groups. Again, so what? I don't give a rat's whiskers where my group falls on an IQ test. Where I fall on an IQ test is what matters to me.

But, look, we are not all equal as groups, or as individuals. Some people are simply a heck of a lot smarter than others. Some people are far more intelligent than others, some are far wiser than others, just as some are shorter or taller than others, and it matters. That's life, no matter how much people would like to deny it. This is simply how it is, and it's not going to change unless science comes up with some way of making us all geniuses.

Privilege is bullshit, pure and simple. Or better put, there isn't a damned thing wrong with privilege of any sort. There are people out there who were born a thousand times as privileged as I was. So what? Good for them. It has nothing to do with me. Nothing. I'm happy for those who were born this way.

The simple fact is that anyone, or any color, can succeed wildly in this country, and they do so every day. People can also whine and bitch about someone else's privilege when they should, if they're intelligent and hard working enough. be spending their time doing what it takes to succeed. No one fails because of someone else's privilege. People fail because they aren't smart enough, or they aren't wise enough, or they don't work hard enough. Usually some combination of the three.

Most people don't even try to succeed, don't even try to make enough money to make like easy for them, and enough to give their own children some serious privilege. What they choose to do with their lives is not designed to make them successful. Even if they go to college, they major in something that will keep them poor for the rest of their lives. If they don't go to college, they take whatever job they can find, knowing that's going to keep them poor, as well.

Too many people in this country blame privilege for their own lack of intelligent effort. While they're doing this, someone they know of the same race and same circumstances is become rich and successful because of hard word, and intelligent choices. But the rest can't do the same thing because of someone else's privilege. Yeah, right.

If you can't succeed, it's because you're making stupid or foolish choices, and/or aren't working hard enough. It's because you lack talent for whatever it is you're trying to do, or it's because your IQ is too low. But you don't fail because someone else is privileged. If this were the case, we wouldn't have so many successful people of every race out there.

Usher
07-13-2015, 07:38 PM
I'm sorry if this has been your experience, but I think you are personalizing your own experience and assuming that the whole world hates smart people. It does not. But it does tend to be hard on smart people who think asserting their smartness should garner them respect.

Hates is too strong a word and I could argue your experience is also personal and that it is being personalised to say this doesn't happen on a regular basis. Discourages and contains intelligence would be better.

We have phrases like know-it-all, swat, scoob, smart aleck, teacher's pet etc There's a whole raft of them for a child to grow up with. When I did a bible reading in church at not quite five I was precocious. I'd only offered because when the minister asked for volunteers nobody else wanted to. I clearly don't make a big deal of it because most people still think I'm as thick and useless on first meeting. The only time I do bring out my intelligence is when someone who is not as well educated or read as myself uses their education to make people feel small. Or like at present when I'm working on a political issue.

My experiences are far from unique.

As soon as I even dare mention in an entirely relevant context that I can read a standard novel in two hours (it has actually happened to a degree on AW) or I can write two thousand plus words in an hour then I get accused of lying. I wouldn't mind but that's far from the fastest human beings are capable of. But no I don't skim read and yes I write using sentences, but it needs an edit and checking for occasional typo.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 07:41 PM
Just wait while I fetch some popcorn, will you?

Amadan
07-13-2015, 07:42 PM
It's fascinating when someone writes a polemic based only on the thread title, too lazy or afeared to engage with what anyone is actually saying and scampering away when challenged.

Amadan
07-13-2015, 07:44 PM
Hates is too strong a word and I could argue your experience is also personal and that it is being personalised to say this doesn't happen on a regular basis. Discourages and contains intelligence would be better.

Are you asking if I ever got picked on for being the "smart kid"? Yes, yes I did.

Eventually, though, I realized that I was not being picked on for being smart - I was being picked on for showing off how smart I was and thinking it made me better than others.

Darron
07-13-2015, 07:47 PM
Jamesaritchie, I'm not going to try and argue with someone that has such a closed mind. Congrats on your past success, your opinion on privilege has been noted (and based on many posts here and studies) largely disagreed with.
Pulling the "they just don't work hard enough" is some of the biggest bullshit I have ever heard. Anyone can succeed, but not everyone gets the same opportunities.

Cyia
07-13-2015, 07:53 PM
IQ most certainly does measure intelligence. We have a hundred years of undeniable scientific proof that this is so.


And millennia worth of real time data that refutes it.

If you gave DaVinci and Einstein the same IQ test, at least one of them would flunk it.

bombergirl69
07-13-2015, 08:03 PM
IQ had it's purpose corrupted...

IQ still means little to nothing in the real world... .

I would disagree with both of these statements. It has not been corrupted in the circles of those who deal with testing issues daily. It can be extremely helpful, as people have pointed out on this thread. Obviously, that some insist on misusing data and making unwarranted assumptions indicates that one can do that, but that is not an indication that IQ, as in, some concept of intelligence, is corrupted.

And I would say however we define it, intelligence is a valuable commodity in any culture. I'm not aware of any culture where it's an advantage to be dull normal. What traits are valued can differ a lot, but still, cultures do prize winning (successful) traits (these include personality trait as well- perseverance, discipline, curiousity. I would agree that sometimes highly intelligent people can have various social issues, for one reason because it is so damn frustrating to wait for the rest of us to catch up. That and feeling left out and maybe not knowing why.

And definitely, show don't tell! Still...the idea of putting it on a CV...just wow.

I was testing a woman who wanted to know if she was a candidate for Mensa and I managed to lock us both out of my office!!! No worries about ME being a candidate (she wasn't either) ;)

Usher
07-13-2015, 08:30 PM
Kids giving the right answers in school, athletes, artists etc. are different. They're actually doing something. It's fine to be proud of your trophies or straight-A transcript because those are things you've actually achieved. A high IQ isn't an achievement, it's just an attribute. Go do something with your potential. Then you can at least brag about something of substance.

Having a low IQ isn't a barrier to doing something of substance etc An IQ is just one of many natural talents. The person who is a natural with music can either work at it and become good or not and the talent goes nowhere. I have a half-brother who's a talented sportsman - he has also worked to be seeded in his events. I couldn't do what he has done even with training, but if he had sat on a couch eating chip butties he wouldn't have done either.

There's nothing wrong with being proud of our attributes and liking who we are. I generally accept other people as they are but I firmly believe we should also accept who we are as well. And the fact I am an intelligent human being with a High IQ is as much a part of me as my thick, long brown hair with less grey than the younger Duchess of Cambridge, remarkably clear unlined skin for my age, a nice pair of legs and dark brown eyes.

But sometimes raw talent is a good place to start Last year I wrote two comedy sketches. I'd never seriously written a script before and I had never written any comedy. I was given an opportunity on the back of that to go on a BBC comedy writing forum. And there I found myself surrounded by experienced individuals who had sweated blood for years whilst I felt very much like a fraud. It's unlikely to get picked up (not very BBC friendly) but my sit-com script is being read by an executive producer. What I'm aiming for is a recommendation I can use to find an agent (assuming I don't luck out and they decide a whisky drinking, cigarette smoking, Voodoo practising, S&M loving Edwardian nurse is BBC friendly). At this point I've achieved a lot and a year on I'm starting to feel less like a fraud. My first ever writing credit and pay came from the BBC and it has opened doors with my novel writing that were previously closed. (Also another area I hadn't expected) If I hadn't had a good mind, high IQ, fast processing etc I would not have been able to catch up with the others.

nighttimer
07-13-2015, 08:34 PM
For IQ, people often misinterpret what IQ means. IQ doesn't mean much as a measure of "intelligence", however IQ is a really good predictor of status; high IQ is strongly correlated with high salary, good job, stable and healthy life and so on, while low IQ is strongly correlated with poverty, unstable job, criminality, drug use, teen pregnancy and so on. When some statistical researchers claim that "even after adjusting for cultural factors, the IQ of African Americans is still one standard deviation below the IQ of White Americans", this must not be interpreted as saying "black people are stupid", but rather as saying "we can show statistically with a single indice that the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)".

Frederick Douglass (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=2946) had a response to that offer:


What shall we do with the negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, -- don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner-table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot-box, let him alone, -- don't disturb him! If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone, -- your interference is doing him a positive injury.

Nothing. That's what you can do to help. Nobody's looking for a White savior to ride to the rescue. You've helped quite enough, thanks. Now go away. Mind your own business. Go help the White American community.

From my perspective, whenever these White intelligence vs. Black intelligence debate take place it invariably turns to "what should be done to help those not-as-smart Blacks step up their game?" That is when it becomes nothing more than an intellectual dick-measuring contest.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 08:43 PM
Having a low IQ isn't a barrier to doing something of substance etc An IQ is just one of many natural talents. The person who is a natural with music can either work at it and become good or not and the talent goes nowhere. I have a half-brother who's a talented sportsman - he has also worked to be seeded in his events. I couldn't do what he has done even with training, but if he had sat on a couch eating chip butties he wouldn't have done either.

There's nothing wrong with being proud of our attributes and liking who we are. I generally accept other people as they are but I firmly believe we should also accept who we are as well. And the fact I am an intelligent human being with a High IQ is as much a part of me as my thick, long brown hair with less grey than the younger Duchess of Cambridge, remarkably clear unlined skin for my age, a nice pair of legs and dark brown eyes. I also have dyspraxia which I learned a long time ago was better to turn into a joke than anything. I have Fibromyalgia which ate my brain for a time but when I started getting better it gave me time to focus on writing.

But sometimes raw talent is a good place to start Last year I wrote two comedy sketches. I'd never seriously written a script before and I had never written any comedy. I was given an opportunity on the back of that to go on a BBC comedy writing forum. And there I found myself surrounded by experienced individuals who had sweated blood for years whilst feeling very much like a fraud. It's unlikely to get picked up (not very BBC friendly) but my sit-com script is being read by an executive producer. At this point I've achieved a lot and a year on I'm starting to feel less like a fraud. My first ever writing credit and pay came from the BBC and it has opened doors with my novel writing that were previously closed. (Also another area I hadn't expected) If I hadn't had a good mind, high IQ, fast processing etc I would not have been able to catch up with the others.

Well, yes. But I've found in life it's generally best to let people assess my brains, wit, and fine ass for themselves rather than proclaiming them. Those are things that can generally be observed without a signpost, and if they're not apparent to a given person, advertising them won't make that person admire me a jot more. My law degree, which is an accomplishment I've earned and one that is not something people can suss out just from meeting me, is something I sometimes bring into a conversation, particularly when discussing legal issues. I have some expertise there, and it's relevant to my opinion.

I do not know the IQ of most people on AW. But I make certain assessments of their intelligence based on their posts. An IQ score really doesn't tell me anything more about them. Someone who continually makes unsupportable, illogical statements will not seem any more intelligent to me because he or she has a high IQ score.

Usher
07-13-2015, 08:47 PM
Eventually, though, I realized that I was not being picked on for being smart - I was being picked on for showing off how smart I was and thinking it made me better than others.

I never saw it as making me better than others. And I'd stopped showing off by the time I was about six because I'd totally lost interest in school. Being dyspraxic there are too many areas I can't even start competing. I've never deliberately used language to exclude people or discussed things they don't understand. But I didn't see anything wrong with answering questions, doing things I enjoyed or wanting to be myself either.

Usher
07-13-2015, 09:00 PM
Well, yes. But I've found in life it's generally best to let people assess my brains, wit, and fine ass for themselves rather than proclaiming them. .

Depends on the situation. But I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging them yourself. Not everybody is going to agree even if you're brilliant at what you do- and that's fine too. Some people will say things like "That Stephen Hawking well he's not as clever as he thinks he is."

One of my life's greatest inspirations is Joan Armatrading. She doesn't expect everyone to love or even like her work but she loves it herself. She's confident when she's written a song and believes it to be good/great she will say that. People assess her as shy whereas she will say quiet etc

That person with a high IQ might not seem intelligent but they are. People generally don't assess me as a capable and intelligent human being, but when I have to I bring it out the woodwork I do. More than one person has ended up flat on their backside because of a false assumption.

bombergirl69
07-13-2015, 09:03 PM
Yes, I think we are talking about social nuance.

Typically, we don't introduce ourselves as, "Hi, I'm Bob and I'm a really, really smart guy. Got an IQ north of 140, so...if you need any problem solving done, I'm your man...just saying...really smart." Social interactions do require both knowing and reading social cues, to determine what information gets shared and what does not.

Just as we also don't (typically) introduce ourselves with a litany of problems, "Hi, i'm steve and wow...do I have emotional issues! Been diagnosed with...well, lemme see, a depressive disorder and dysthymia-really, both!- and posttraumatic stress, and ADHD-never could concentrate- and I do have some psychosis and oh, a bunch of stuff on Axis II. My girl and I are trying to have a kid, really trying but I've got ED, so you know..." because we gauge what's appropriate in the situation. Introducing our selves to a new treatment group is very different from introducing ourselves to a new coworker.

Obviously I am being extreme but the point is IQ (which is a range, not a number), past awards and so forth, tends not to be the kind of thing we share socially (although I am rather proud of the "Miss Gung ho" award I won as a four-year-old, after I fell in a pond.) NOT that anyone should be ashamed at all of brains or talent! But tuned in socially to see what's appropriate.

And totally agree with Cassandra that if people think I sound like an idiot, my telling them, "no! NO! NO! I've got this super duper IQ!" is not likely to change their minds (and I am for sure not saying anyone is doing that, obviously an extreme example)

bombergirl69
07-13-2015, 09:04 PM
And I am a massive Joan Armitrading fan!!

Amadan
07-13-2015, 09:13 PM
Depends on the situation. But I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging them yourself. Not everybody is going to agree even if you're brilliant at what you do- and that's fine too. Some people will say things like "That Stephen Hawking well he's not as clever as he thinks he is."

One of my life's greatest inspirations is Joan Armatrading. She doesn't expect everyone to love or even like her work but she loves it herself. She's confident when she's written a song and believes it to be good/great she will say that. People assess her as shy whereas she will say quiet etc

That person with a high IQ might not seem intelligent but they are. People generally don't assess me as a capable and intelligent human being, but when I have to I bring it out the woodwork I do. More than one person has ended up flat on their backside because of a false assumption.


No one is saying you should be ashamed of your high IQ. But being proud of it is kind of like being proud of your brown hair. It's not something you did. It's not something with any qualitative value. It's a silly thing to be proud of, and if you brag about it, people will think it's silly.

Worse, if you think "I have a high IQ, therefore you should acknowledge that I am an intelligent person," well, intelligence is demonstrated. It's not claimed. Sorry, but no, I don't care if you honest-to-god tested with an IQ of 300, I'm not going to be impressed until you show me what that means, and if your behavior or actions makes me think you're stupid (generic you, not you personally), I'm going to think you're stupid, regardless of your IQ.

Usher
07-13-2015, 09:15 PM
Just as we also don't (typically) introduce ourselves with a litany of problems, "Hi, i'm steve and wow...do I have emotional issues! Been diagnosed with...well, lemme see, a depressive disorder and dysthymia-really, both!- and posttraumatic stress, and ADHD-never could concentrate- and I do have some psychosis and oh, a bunch of stuff on Axis II. My girl and I are trying to have a kid, really trying but I've got ED, so you know..." because we gauge what's appropriate in the situation. Introducing our selves to a new treatment group is very different from introducing ourselves to a new coworker.

Of course you don't do it as part of a great hello. But I do think we should be open about those aspects of our lives as well.

There was a group of women I was a part of. I knew every single woman in the group who had fibromyalgia (there were five), had had a miscarriage (four), dyspraxia (one other) and a few other issues. Everyone else only knew about me.


Obviously I am being extreme but the point is IQ (which is a range, not a number), past awards and so forth, tends not to be the kind of thing we share socially (although I am rather proud of the "Miss Gung ho" award I won as a four-year-old, after I fell in a pond.) NOT that anyone should be ashamed at all of brains or talent! But tuned in socially to see what's appropriate.

See and now I know that. Fantastic achievement ;) And it's such a fun tidbit.


And totally agree with Cassandra that if people think I sound like an idiot, my telling them, "no! NO! NO! I've got this super duper IQ!" is not likely to change their minds (and I am for sure not saying anyone is doing that, obviously an extreme example)

I'm sure it won't. But then we used to call people with learning difficulties stupid, imbecile, lunatic etc because of our perceptions of them. And in many cases society and perfections were wrong.

Even the most intelligent people have areas where they are incredibly dumb.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 09:16 PM
More than one person has ended up flat on their backside because of a false assumption.


Well, yes, I've experienced that. But I generally enjoy it. Indeed, I have, on occasion, deliberately played into opposing counsel's or their client's under-assessment of my intelligence and ability. It invariably works to my advantage.

I have yet to find a situation where advertising my IQ score (as opposed to saying intelligent things and demonstrating my ability to analyze a situation or fact pattern) would work to my advantage. True, many people do tend to give me extra automatic points for intelligence upfront for certain of my accomplishments -- but those are accomplishments. I've worked for them. They're not simply scores purporting to measure my raw potential. They demonstrate what I've done with my potential.

ETA:

Certainly, I have had some random buffoons in social or work situations condescend to me and treat me like an idiot. Safe to say they generally expose their own idiocy rather than mine. I wield my wit rather than my IQ score in those situations. It is far more effective.

AW Admin
07-13-2015, 09:22 PM
From my perspective, IQ tests mostly measure how well people perform on IQ tests.

Oh, my IQ?

42. Really. Truly. That means I not only can't walk and chew gum at the same time, I can't breathe on my own.

Usher
07-13-2015, 09:32 PM
No one is saying you should be ashamed of your high IQ. But being proud of it is kind of like being proud of your brown hair. It's not something you did. It's not something with any qualitative value. It's a silly thing to be proud of, and if you brag about it, people will think it's silly.

But why do people think it is silly for people to actually be proud of who they are and what they've been given? You bet I like my hair and other attributes. When my hair is clean, shining and done - yes I go out with my head held high, feeling great. There is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are lock, stock and every barrel smoking.


Worse, if you think "I have a high IQ, therefore you should acknowledge that I am an intelligent person,"

I don't. Doesn't mean a person can't acknowledge it themselves. And if they state my IQ is such and such then they're not bragging it is a fact (unless they are lying). The other person doesn't have to acknowledge the person with a high IQ has a basic raw intelligence, but they would actually just be wrong. There is a world of difference between likeable and intelligence. There are lots of people in my life I acknowledge are intelligent but I can't stand their attitudes. Also education =/= intelligence and vice versa.


well, intelligence is demonstrated. It's not claimed. Sorry, but no, I don't care if you honest-to-god tested with an IQ of 300, I'm not going to be impressed until you show me what that means, and if your behavior or actions makes me think you're stupid (generic you, not you personally), I'm going to think you're stupid, regardless of your IQ.

But that then becomes your assumption based on appearance even when it flies in the face of evidence to contrary.

I quite like Michael Ball and John Barrowman - both well paid West End stars who at one point Andrew Lloyd Webber said were the only leading men he would trust to open a show. Yet under their YouTube video there are countless comments about how they can't act or sing so is it wrong of them to say they are actors, singers, entertainers etc?

Is it wrong of JK Rowling to say she is one of the world's top writers even though there are people who say her writing is appalling and she stole her stories etc?

I don't like Michael Buble - he's as boring as hell. But does that mean he can't say I'm a good singer? No it just means my opinion differs.

And actually this feeds into the original question in a way. We make assumptions by appearance, taste and prejudice. This has entered in to why the IQ tests can be unfair.

kuwisdelu
07-13-2015, 09:45 PM
But being proud of it is kind of like being proud of your brown hair.

But I am proud of my hair.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 09:46 PM
If I announce I have a very high IQ score, does it change anything at all about the way you view me, or do you continue to view me based on my 15,000-odd posts on AW? Do I seem any more intelligent?

Similarly, if I were standing in front of you and informed you I have a fine ass and I'm proud of it, would it in any way increase your appreciation of its splendor?

I'm thinking no. It generally has the reverse effect, I think -- people start looking for ways you're not intelligent and how maybe your ass isn't as well-shaped as you claim.

Amadan
07-13-2015, 09:46 PM
But why do people think it is silly for people to actually be proud of who they are and what they've been given?

Because what you've been given is through no effort or accomplishment of your own.


I don't. Doesn't mean a person can't acknowledge it themselves. And if they state my IQ is such and such then they're not bragging it is a fact (unless they are lying).

Why would you state your IQ unless you think it is significant somehow? It's shorthand for "I am smart" and wanting people to recognize you as such.


But that then becomes your assumption based on appearance even when it flies in the face of evidence to contrary.

If someone acts stupid, what is the evidence that he's smart? An IQ test?

Have you ever met someone with a PhD who was an idiot, and not even particularly competent in his field? I have. On paper, that PhD should make him an expert. But if he can't actually demonstrate it, then he's incompetent no matter how he managed to get a PhD.



Is it wrong of JK Rowling to say she is one of the world's top writers even though there are people who say her writing is appalling and she stole her stories etc?

Did she say that? I wouldn't say it was wrong, but I would say it sounds rather egotistical.

Usher
07-13-2015, 09:51 PM
ETA:

Certainly, I have had some random buffoons in social or work situations condescend to me and treat me like an idiot. Safe to say they generally expose their own idiocy rather than mine. I wield my wit rather than my IQ score in those situations. It is far more effective.

The IQ is part of what gives you the wit. It's no coincidence that a number of comedians have high IQs. Wit requires a fast ability to process and probably makes you a good attorney. Those who lack wit don't do terribly well in court. Last time I was in the witness box the advocates got a ticking off from the Sheriff because he felt I was doing their job for them. (just glad he didn't tell me off...) Due to lack of education my wit is all I have.

Funnily enough.... it was a fight with social workers that was my most recent experience. They spent a year when my Fibromyalgia was bad, treating me like a total idiot with a deficiency. At least two of them were in tears when my energy came back.

And actually that is part of what I am trying to say. They saw a stupid woman because my brain was fogged, I was all swollen up and was struggling to get my words out. A lot of people would make the same assumption because that woman in the wheelchair with her tongue hanging out doesn't look up to much. My education was wiped after three years in bed. There is this disconnect between what I know and knowing how I know it. When I do go back and research I'm usually right even with things that are quite complex. All of those things give a perception of stupid - even when actually the person is not stupid. Like when I was a kid unable to tie my shoelaces and write easily.

I spent my teen years on a fairly rough estate with people that would be perceived as "stupid" for any number of reasons. An awful lot were not stupid and actually IQ tests at school showed that

Society has moved on a long way but still not that far. People rely on certain perceived indicators for intelligence.

kuwisdelu
07-13-2015, 09:52 PM
Because what you've been given is through no effort or accomplishment of your own.

That doesn't make it any less mine, and I'll be proud of what I have thank you very much.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 09:52 PM
But I am proud of my hair.

As well you should be. It's lovely.

asroc
07-13-2015, 09:54 PM
But why do people think it is silly for people to actually be proud of who they are and what they've been given? You bet I like my hair and other attributes. When my hair is clean, shining and done - yes I go out with my head held high, feeling great. There is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are lock, stock and every barrel smoking.

I don't think it's silly to be proud of what you've been given, although it's not like it's actually an accomplishment. I do think it's impolite to brag about it.

Cyia
07-13-2015, 09:55 PM
From my perspective, IQ tests mostly measure how well people perform on IQ tests.

Oh, my IQ?

42. Really. Truly. That means I not only can't walk and chew gum at the same time, I can't breathe on my own.

I was hoping you'd post in this thread. :)

(Okay, I was kind of hoping you'd post in three dead languages in this thread, just to hammer the point home.)

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 10:00 PM
From my perspective, IQ tests mostly measure how well people perform on IQ tests.

Oh, my IQ?

42. Really. Truly. That means I not only can't walk and chew gum at the same time, I can't breathe on my own.


I was hoping you'd post in this thread. :)

(Okay, I was kind of hoping you'd post in three dead languages in this thread, just to hammer the point home.)

Assuming Medievalist is serious, here is a really fine example of why I am completely unmoved by hearing someone's IQ score.

TheNighSwan
07-13-2015, 10:01 PM
[yes I realise my last post was 3 pages ago, but this thread suddenly started moving on fast]

I have stated several times in this thread and the previous one this thread was born out of that I recognize the many specific hardships of the African American community, and that I am perfectly aware that at least a good number of them are due to conscious and unconscious racial discrimination. I find it a bit patronizing that some of the contibutors in this discussion frequently ignore my questions to "remind" me of these facts that I have made clear I aknowlege without reserve.

I do not question these facts. I question whether the concept of "privilege" is a good theoretical framework to describe this situation; by "question", I don't mean "trying to prove it's false", I mean "trying to understand the theory". I have no preconceived thought on the subject, which is why I am asking questions; if I was certain the concept of privilege was rock solid or completely bogus, I wouldn't bother discussing it.

I also do not understand why you insist on separating opportunities from outcomes at group level. Certainly, at individual level, a lot of opportunities can be missed and result in poor outcomes, whereas a person with not a lot of opportunities can work extra hard to have the same or even more positive outcomes that someone who has had more opportunities. But those are outliers which in a group statisically cancel out. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to assume that at group levels, the outcomes will be strongly correlated with the opportunities, and so outcomes are in fact a valid measure of opportunities when considering groups of people.

And this is why I am asking if, in privilege theory, there is a possibility that some group outcome differences observed may be due to other factors than privilege or if all group outcome differences, as they're expected to correlate with group opportunities, can by definition only be analyzed as the product of privilege. This is not a trick question, I am asking a plain statement of what theoricians of privilege are saying on the matter. If you don't know, then just say "I don't know" so we can move on, instead of impugning motive to my question and attacking its formulation —if you don't know, I'm not going to jump at your throat while gloating "HAHA THIS PROVES UR WRONG!!!"




some things like abstract reasoning are indeed more valued by Western culture than in other cultures

As far as I can tell, all cultures that have been alphabetized for a sufficiently long period of time will value abstract reasoning in the form of philosophy and mathematics. Outside of the west, China, India, Persia, the various Arab and Turkic empires, Ancient Egypt, the ancient empires of Mesopotamia, the various pre-columbian civilization of central America all have long lasting traditions of philosophy and maths.

Most Black African countries haven't been alphabetised for a really long time, but there is one major exception: Ethiopia, which has had its own writing system (the Ge'ez script) since at least the 5th century BC and was using other systems (Greek, Samaritan, South Arabian) even before that. And as it turns out, Ethiopia not only has its own unique philosophical tradition, but has also a small specific mathematical tradition which came up with limited but rather advanced concepts for the time (notably, a method of multiplication that uses a very primitive form of logarithm).

So when I hear "well black culture just isn't made for abstract reasoning", I call fool; to me this is the same kind of talk "there will never be a woman chess grandmaster or physical theorist because female brains just don't work that way". That's just defeatist. If there's a gap in the learning of abstract reasoning between Blacks and Whites, this is a not a cultural difference that must be respected, this is an inequality which must be fixed.

It might well be true that black children benefit from more concrete ways of teaching abstract skills, but that's because as far as studies on the subject go (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-school), all children benefit from this, regardless of cultural or racial background.




the reason Black students do worse on tests is because we are taught to question things instead of just accepting facts with no questions asked

I am going to need a serious source on that, both on the idea that black culture is more inherently questioning of authority (as opposed to just more questioning of outgroup authority, because I can assure you white people have absolutely no problem with questioning authority when it comes from an outgroup), and on the idea that this somehow causes them to be less good at understanding abstract questions; I know a few people who strongly question all authority and will never take any statement at face value without examining it: they are very high performers academically and end up in jobs (often science-related) that call for a very high level of skill in abstract reasoning.



As for the value of IQ in general and the cultural relativism about the desirability of certain outcomes, I think I have given plenty of sources that show that IQ is strongly correlated with many objectively desirable outcomes (such as "not ending up in jail or dead at a young age"). Since IQ can be tested fairly early in life and rarely changes much during it, the correct answer is to see this as a screening tool for the persons who will need extra help and ressources alloted to them so that they are given enough opportunities to succeed in life. I really don't see what's controversial or problematic about this.


nighttimer > I'm sure you will have a much more productive and intelligent discussion with Jamesaritchie than with me.

kuwisdelu
07-13-2015, 10:06 PM
As far as I can tell, all cultures that have been alphabetized for a sufficiently long period of time will value abstract reasoning in the form of philosophy and mathematics. Outside of the west, China, India, Persia, the various Arab and Turkic empires, Ancient Egypt, the ancient empires of Mesopotamia, the various pre-columbian civilization of central America all have long lasting traditions of philosophy and maths.

I don't know what you mean by "alphabetized". I assume you mean having a written language?


So when I hear "well black culture just isn't made for abstract reasoning", I call fool; to me this is the same kind of talk "there will never be a woman chess grandmaster or physical theorist because female brains just don't work that way". That's just defeatist. If there's a gap in the learning of abstract reasoning between Blacks and Whites, this is a not a cultural difference that must be respected, this is an inequality which must be fixed.

That's not what's actually being said, and since you continue to ignore or misinterpret what's actually being said, I give up.

Heh, I guess that does make me defeatist.

Usher
07-13-2015, 10:08 PM
Because what you've been given is through no effort or accomplishment of your own.

So? Doesn't make it less a part of me. People should like themselves more.


Why would you state your IQ unless you think it is significant somehow? It's shorthand for "I am smart" and wanting people to recognize you as such.

I haven't actually stated mine, partly because I can't remember the exact number. I don't think there is any reason not to state in a conversation especially when that conversation is about IQ or intelligence or ability relating to it in some way. Why be ashamed of it? However it's a statement of fact, nothing I feel the need to hide. If people still think I'm stupid then let them.


If someone acts stupid, what is the evidence that he's smart? An IQ test?

An high IQ is evidence of them being not stupid yes.


Have you ever met someone with a PhD who was an idiot, and not even particularly competent in his field?

I've met several for whom that has been my opinion yes. But it doesn't make them stupid. And unless their PhD has come by fraudulently it makes them above average in their field.


Did she say that? I wouldn't say it was wrong, but I would say it sounds rather egotistical.

I don't know if she has or not but why would it be egotistical? It's not like she hasn't got the goods to back up her statement. And that's my issue. I'm challenging the idea that stating we are good at something (even if that is IQ tests and related TV quiz shows) is bragging, egotistical, boasting, crowing, pretentious, precious, prideful etc Why when someone states they are good at something do we sling those words, names and more at them?

JK Rowling should be able to say I'm one of the most successful children's' authors and you know what I love Harry Potter - they're the best books I've ever read. Assuming that's what she thinks and for actually there be no problem with her saying it.

Amadan
07-13-2015, 10:17 PM
So? Doesn't make it less a part of me. People should like themselves more.

Okay, let me put it this way - I get being proud of, say, being Polish, or having freckles, or naturally curly locks. But it seems strange to me to boast of it, or drop it into conversation like it's something other people should care about or admire.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a0/63/8c/a0638cfc25c14b4522f67a76bbf8af27.jpg


An high IQ is evidence of them being not stupid yes.

No, it really isn't.


I've met several for whom that has been my opinion yes. But it doesn't make them stupid. And unless their PhD has come by fraudulently it makes them above average in their field.

No, it really doesn't.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 10:28 PM
A nice example of how random IQ tests can be is Charles Manson. He was borderline illiterate, though (IMO) unquestionably bright (and evil, but that's another thing). As I recall from the book Helter Skelter, he was given two IQ tests at different points while incarcerated. One put him at 109 (which is in the average range), and the other at 121 (which put him in the "very superior" range.)

AW Admin
07-13-2015, 10:33 PM
Assuming Medievalist is serious, here is a really fine example of why I am completely unmoved by hearing someone's IQ score.

I am absolutely serious. At one point my parents were advised to place me in an institution. I was privileged as the child of an academic and an overly-educated mom; they didn't listen and they had the time and energy to work with me as a kid, and had the ability to negotiate the medical labyrinth.

Usher
07-13-2015, 10:39 PM
Okay, let me put it this way - I get being proud of, say, being Polish, or having freckles, or naturally curly locks. But it seems strange to me to boast of it, or drop it into conversation like it's something other people should care about or admire.

Why is saying you're proud of being Polish or having freckles or curly hair boasting? I get this is a society thing. And I get it's what we are taught.

Like me all those years ago being called pretentious for doing the reading in a Sunday School situation because the older ones wouldn't do it. I wasn't being pretentious. Admittedly I did say "Well if no one else wants to do it I will."

There's nothing wrong with saying "I can do this and actually I am bloody good at this."

Or saying well "I like my hair."

Maybe there would be fewer girls with body confidence issues if they were allowed to say "I'm me and I'm gorgeous."

And there's nothing wrong with me saying well my IQ is 130 something when physical ability was taken into account and I think it's 163 for mental so not super high genius stuff but not bad either.



No, it really isn't.
No, it really doesn't.

They're just opinions and assertions. It's entirely possible to be above average in the academic and understanding of something but to struggle to apply it or not to be able to teach a subject. Which makes a thesis possible but doesn't translate so well into the work. I do tend to believe those that struggle to teach or explain are the ones who haven't fully grasped their subject.

I can think of one rather well known person in the field of archaeology who is portrayed as a good old rounder but he isn't really - he's great at blagging. More than once, as a second year student, I've had to sort out the bagging work he's done. Its caused a few laughs. However if you pin him down to his particular period and subject, and there is very few better. Then he is amazing. It's just not what he is promoted as.

Then another well known one he works with is portrayed as more of a specialist when actually he's also a much better all rounder.

Lillith1991
07-13-2015, 10:43 PM
I don't know what you mean by "alphabetized". I assume you mean having a written language?



That's not what's actually being said, and since you continue to ignore or misinterpret what's actually being said, I give up.

Heh, I guess that does make me defeatist.

I'm with Kuwi on this.

TheNighSwan, I give up. I'm not wasting anymore time talking to someone whose only interest is in twisting my words around. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, a big part of Black culture in the US is to question authority, period.

Usher
07-13-2015, 10:44 PM
I am absolutely serious. At one point my parents were advised to place me in an institution. I was privileged as the child of an academic and an overly-educated mom; they didn't listen and they had the time and energy to work with me as a kid, and had the ability to negotiate the medical labyrinth.

I was lucky with the first one that the tester knew my Mum so when I said I didn't know what a circle, square and triangle was she laughed at me.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 10:56 PM
As an adult no. As a child it changed my life. I went from the untidy thick-as-pigshit kid who could read well beyond anyone else in class, but struggled to write (that made all the other subjects harder because I couldn't write fast enough), fell over all the time, ate their lunch too slow so never got time to play, couldn't tie their shoelaces etc to one people were prepared to be more patient with. I went from being stuck doing the tasks to easy for my brain to ones that didn't challenge but were more worthwhile.


I'm going back to this quote to compare it with Medievalist's experience. Both of you are obviously bright. But for you, learning your IQ score taught you to value yourself more, whereas for Medievalist, were it not for her parents, it could have had just the opposite effect.

My mother was in your camp. She grew up on welfare, in extremely bad circumstances. One day a teacher quietly told her that she had scored highest in the school on whatever school-wide test they were administering in those days. (My mom thinks the teacher let her know that because the other kids were constantly mocking her for her shabby clothes and so forth.) It did make a difference for her -- she knew that she had the potential to succeed, and it helped drive her.

But for every kid like my mother, I'm guessing there are a ton of kids who don't do well on standardized tests and just assume they're stupid and doomed to fail -- and it drives them the other way.

I happen to be someone who does do well on the particular things IQ tests, the LSAT, the GRE, etc. measure. But I know some extremely intelligent people that, for one reason or another, do not do well on such tests. Medievalist is a fantastic example. I think such tests are a measurement of certain skills and abilities, but not so much of someone's true intelligence or their potential to achieve.

TheNighSwan
07-13-2015, 11:00 PM
kuwideslu and Lillith1991 > if you feel I have misunderstood what you are trying to say, then you can do the same thing I've been doing for most of this thread: clarify what you meant. This is how discussions work.

And no, I won't accept "black culture is naturally more questioning of authority" just because you're saying so (especially ironic considering it's me who's questioning the claim and you who's asserting it in a perceived position of authority). I have been energically asked to provide serious, scholarly sources for my claims in this thread, and I have complied, so you can be certain that I will hold you to the same standard of evidence regardless of your racial background.

I'm kind of getting tired of glaring double standards here.

Amadan
07-13-2015, 11:06 PM
NighSwan, I think you are arguing in good faith (and there are a couple of people here who argue by assertion rather than evidence), but I also think you have ignored some of the points people brought up in rebuttal to your studies, and I also think you are sometimes tripping up over language a bit.

Latina Bunny
07-13-2015, 11:20 PM
Maybe you could speak more clearly, NighSwan? What is your theory? What are you trying to show?

I don't know my IQ (I was 90-95 in elementary school, I think), so I may be super-dense. Plus, I'm White Hispanic and Hispanic-descent, so maybe that affects and mixed up my IQ...Did the study mention Hispanic IQ?

I really, really hope I'm misunderstanding: Are you saying that one of the reasons many Blacks are poor is because...they have lower IQ than Whites?

You said you're looking at other factors beside white privilege that would probably explain why Blacks are poor or something like that? I'm confused about your position on white privilege.

And let's say those old studies are still accurate... Ok....So.... What do you want to do with this knowledge?

Cyia
07-13-2015, 11:25 PM
(My mom thinks the teacher let her know that because the other kids were constantly mocking her for her shabby clothes and so forth.)


Which was the actual, original point of such tests - to prove that circumstances didn't contribute to intelligence.

Usher
07-13-2015, 11:29 PM
I'm going back to this quote to compare it with Medievalist's experience. Both of you are obviously bright. But for you, learning your IQ score taught you to value yourself more, whereas for Medievalist, were it not for her parents, it could have had just the opposite effect.
[/QUOTE]

I don't think it is the only type of intelligence or basic talent etc. No matter how high my IQ most physical or things that require fine motor are beyond me. What it has allowed me to do is gain a passing knowledge and have a go at a lot of things my dyspraxia might have flat out prevented otherwise.

Also had I had my test done en masse at school I may well have got less than Medievalist did because I would have struggled to have written the responses. If my parents hadn't done the test then fought to get help with my writing then my one at the start of high school would have been a very different story. Like Medievalist I'm where I am because my parents didn't give up.

I've said not all IQ tests are equal. Mine lasted a full morning. It included a whole battery of tests and compensated for the things I could not do or struggled with. It also states it might have been on the low side because there were things I couldn't do physically. Everything about the test was to create the level playing field. Once the issues I was having were worked on my results have been consistent on even the basic tests online. There aren't many who get an IQ test like I did. I have a sneaking suspicion if there were then the African American statistics would be much higher.

If you give Stephen Hawking an IQ test and tell him to handwrite it or remove his computer and expect him to do it verbally then he's not going to score as high as Medievalist did.

What I am challenging is the idea that someone with a high IQ can't value the advantages it gives them. (and I'm foggy right now so probably doing it very badly) But it's part of a wider belief I have about society rather than IQ specific.

CassandraW
07-13-2015, 11:46 PM
What I am challenging is the idea that someone with a high IQ can't value the advantages it gives them. (and I'm foggy right now so probably doing it very badly) But it's part of a wider belief I have about society rather than IQ specific.

I think it's fine to value it -- but I also think it's best to not advertise too much that you value it. It's no less yours, and there's no advantage whatsoever to advertising your pride over something that was essentially a genetic gift, rather than something you worked to attain.

I used to know a tall redheaded woman who was always talking about how gorgeous tall redheaded people are, and how men can't resist her because she's a tall redhead. Also, she was of Swedish descent, and was constantly talking about how smart and genetically gifted Swedes were, and how she owed her tallness and redheadedness and intelligence (which, IMO was pretty middling, by the way) to her Swedishness. After a while (say, 5 minutes), it got tiresome.

There's nothing wrong with being pleased with your height, your red hair or your intelligence, nor with being proud of your Swedish heritage. But discussing it tends to make people wince, and (to themselves or others, if not directly to you) to say "well, I don't think she's particularly attractive or intelligent, and oh my, is she arrogant."

If someone talks about their 2.5 hour marathon or their PhD or their well-reviewed book, I think people tend to cut way more slack. Those are accomplishments that entailed hard work, not mere gifts.

nighttimer
07-14-2015, 12:02 AM
nighttimer > I'm sure you will have a much more productive and intelligent discussion with Jamesaritchie than with me.

I rather doubt that. Your assumption is right and wrong, NighSwan. Wrong in that I would have a more intelligent and productive discussion with Mr. Jamesaritchie. Right in that there's nothing intelligent and productive about this discussion either.

If I were to start a thread about who's got the biggest and baddest gluteus maximus, White women or Black women and I offered Sigourney Weaver vs. Serena Williams as my evidence Black women win the battle of the buttocks hands down it would and should be shut down with the quickness and banished to the Arkham Asylum landfill of Stupid, Annoying and Pointless Threads.

It would be sexist, misogynist and reducing a woman to the sum of her body parts. It's not subject to debate. Neither is questioning how smart Black people are.

The Bell Curve, which you so lovingly referenced in your initial post is junk science at its junkiest and is merely a mainstreamed continuation of Eugenics in a more polite guise. It is scientific racism. Whatever garb its dressed up in it is still diving the world up into the superior and the inferior, the fit and the unfit, the masters and the slaves.

I have no interest in debating, defending or justifying the intelligence of the Black race to you or anyone else. Doing so only legitimizes the absurdity of an offensive premise.

Usher
07-14-2015, 12:10 AM
I
I used to know a tall, red-headed woman who was always talking about how gorgeous tall redheaded people are, and how men can't resist her because she's a tall redhead. Also, she was of Swedish descent, and was constantly talking about how smart and genetically gifted Swedes were, and how she owed her tallness and redheadedness and intelligence (which, IMO was pretty middling, by the way) to her Swedish-ness. After a while, it got tiresome.

I think that is the key. It wasn't what she was saying it was her social issues that were the problem.. but if it is part of the conversation why not be able to state it? If I always talking about my IQ then I'd know what exactly what it was and wouldn't be curious enough to ask hubby if he fancies going in the loft for my box. Why can't we say in a thread about IQ or something similar this is what I have and this is what it has given me.

Just like with the IQ and the CV.

If the job involves picking things up quickly then combined with other achievements it is an indication as to how well someone will be able to do that. In isolation it is nothing. But if qualifications are otherwise fairly level then it could imply an edge. But like with different schools and universities being valued differently so should IQ tests. We don't devalue say a first from Oxford because someone got a first from an online university.

My husband discovered his High School grades (although good) and his college work held no sway in the UK because they weren't on a certain list.



There's nothing wrong with being pleased with your height, or your red hair, or your intelligence, nor with being proud of your Swedish heritage. But discussing it tends to make people wince, and (to themselves or others, if not directly to you) to say "well, I don't think she's particularly attractive or intelligent, and oh my, is she arrogant."

But why do we wince and then find a need to devalue it?

If someone says: "I've got great hair" and they do - why if it's relevant to a conversation should they not say it? Not in the case you cited but in general I think the message society sends out is "It isn't OK to be you." or "It is OK to be you but only if you fit within certain parameters."


If someone talks about their 2.5 hour marathon or their PhD or their well-reviewed book, I think people tend to cut way more slack. Those are accomplishments that entailed hard work, not mere gifts.

Some are and some aren't. There are people that get just as butthurt over someone sharing their achievements as they do with anything else. It's why we have critics.

Xelebes
07-14-2015, 12:13 AM
The Bell Curve, which you so lovingly referenced in your initial post is junk science at its junkiest and is merely a mainstreamed continuation of Eugenics in a more polite guise. It is scientific racism. Whatever garb its dressed up in it is still diving the world up into the superior and the inferior, the fit and the unfit, the masters and the slaves.

/wanders in. Oh, hello Pioneer Fund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund)-funded research. Hanging out with Rushton, Murray, Pearson, et al. Good to see that research being used to assert claims.

MacAllister
07-14-2015, 12:17 AM
This whole thread is giving me that stabby pain behind my left eye.

And we seem to be going in circles, now -- increasingly offensive circles.

So we're gonna be done, instead, I think.

Kylabelle
07-15-2015, 08:01 PM
Mac, thanks so much for stepping in while I was away.