Agreed. Indians, Turkmen, Arabs and Pakistanis all come closer to the European phenotype than the Oriental. With their aqualine noses and straight hair differences in this respect are largely a matter of skin colour. Sub-Saharan Africans however - excepting east Africans - have major physiological differences which physically prevent them from the higher abstract reasonings which characterize European and Asian civilizations. This is reflected in the results of I.Q. tests, but is not confined to them. Close observation of this phenotype, for example, yields the obvious conclusion that they are more physical in their behavior than other races, and their cultures reflect this. This depends upon the race of the person in question. But it is certainly true to say though that the higher religions were created by the higher races. Buddhism - transcendence of the physical - by the Orientals and Islam - the invisible (Allah) as a source of the material world - by whites. Well... why not?
I agree. I think one will find a strong correlation between a person's results on subsequent IQ tests. The curve will go up slightly until a plateau is reached, but this is also predictable. If an employer needs someone who can do well on IQ tests, an IQ test is the test to use.
Well, which takes precedence? I'm black and an atheist. So am I 'dumber' or smarter than a white theist? I don't believe in the nonsense of IQ tests.
The White House is only another cage. (Would you take Ota Benga as a husband and produce off-spring with him? I can assure you both Indians and Pakistanis do not interbreed with these people, in Britain such mixed marriages are very rare.)
You can take averages of this that and the other thing, including IQ but what does it tell you? Does it mean that all individuals of a given race have the same IQ, no. There are exceptionally smart people of all races. And there are those that are below normal intelligences in all races. So you cannot use race to predict intelligence or behavior of any given individual. And there is more to life than intelligence. People of good heart always have something to contribute to society regardless of race or intelligence. p/s I am kind of embarrassed about George II being white. Any other races want to claim him?
Forty-one years ago when I was about to receive my university degree (in accounting) and was looking for a good job in which to use it, I went to see the university career advisory office. The lady behind the desk told me, "The [local municipal government] has had a job posted here for six months. It appears that they are willing to hire anyone with a bachelor's degree in any field. It's called 'EDP Trainee' and I have absolutely no idea what kind of work that is, but the starting salary is $624 per month." That was a genuine fortune in 1967--when a really nice apartment rented for $100, a brand-new Chevy cost a little over $2,000 and milk was 25 cents a quart--and 50% higher than the starting salary for an accountant. I had no idea what "EDP" stood for either, but I headed straight for the county administrative center and discovered that it was "electronic data processing," i.e., something to do with them newfangled computer thingies. It turned out that they were looking specifically for people who had the aptitude to become computer programmers. This was back in the days when Cobol was the state of the art in MIS software development and Fortran in science, and quite a few programmers needed to be able to write in Assembler language, either because the higher-level languages compiled code that was too inefficient to process hundreds of thousands of records, or else because they simply couldn't handle infrastructural-level operations. They set me down to take a "programmer's aptitude test." The questions were of the nature: "What would this pile of blocks look like from behind?" "What's the next number in this series?" "If all dogs are mammals and all mammals are vertebrates, does that mean that all vertebrates are dogs?" I immediately recognized it as an IQ test, since I had taken the Mensa test a few months previously. They were just looking for really bright people who had the discipline to finish a college degree program (in any specialty including political science and Slavic studies, I was soon to find out) and the general knowledge that came with it. They were intercepting people who had the cognitive skills (and often the training) to become top scientists, attorneys and teachers (and, I suppose, accountants), and turning them into computer geeks, because in those days computer programming really was that difficult. The strategy worked. I never met a single person who had passed that test who didn't turn out to be an excellent programmer. Of course it didn't test for other key skills like communicating with end users, so the software we built often didn't do what they had asked for, much less what they really needed (which are invariably not identical). And it didn't test for "people skills" so when that first generation of programmers were promoted into management in the 1970s, IT (as we now call it) organizations pretty much fell apart. Today's programming languages are more problem-focused than technology-focused, so the people who build software today can be selected for their skill at understanding the business they support, rather than knowing how computers work. But in my day, a high score on an IQ test was a ticket to an interesting, challenging and very high-paying career.
Very good story Fraggle! There are some lessons to be learned in it. IQ tests do have a place/use. But they should be used wisely.
Ahh, but see, that's the kicker in it, ain't it? Humans will "use" those tests, but we all know that humans have many and varied weaknesses and faults. Whenever we have to depend on humans to do the "right thing", they'll often surprise us, wouldn't they. Baron Max
I don't require IQ tests (sic) to perceive who is more or less clever than me, how much so, nor the relative intellectual merits of different groups.
Averages. Nobody is saying that you're "stupider" than any other average whites or theists. Ironically, you do seem fairly stupid, as you cannot understand the findings.
To what Fraggle said: I was about to immediately respond to you and say that people with high IQ's DO do well with computer programming. This, of course, does not reflect general intelligence. Well, I'm off to make a thread regarding general intelligence vs knowledge possessed. Anyone wanna join in?
Hm. I wanted to start a thread about when IQ tests are a reliable metric, and when they aren't. Apparently, if you want to denigrate a group, IQ tests are an acceptable metric, otherwise they're off limits. Is that because you use your feelings to determine whether something is true? Heh, of course you don't like IQ tests. They probably rape you.
But- but that DOES reflect a sort of general intelligence. Fraggle was in an environment where no one was previously a computer guy, yet everyone that scored well on that test, came to do well in programming.
I meant GENERAL intelligence. The IQ tests tell us other types of intelligence, among them the things required to be a good programmer. Men are also much better programmers, on average. Not surprising though :\
Looking back on it, other than the fact that the IQ test was biased toward good readers, I'd say that it did test the most general type of intelligence. (The programmer's test, not the Mensa test.) Understanding communication, reasoning, logical deduction, process flows, problem solving, levels of structural decomposition, etc. And in the old days, those were pretty much the same skills that made a good programmer. I spent almost thirty years in civil service, which has a much better gender balance than most businesses, and I don't agree with you. Perhaps this is because I was dealing with both men and women who'd already passed the test. But even today among the younger people, I find just as many of the brilliant geeks are women as men. Both of the gurus on my current project are female.
IQ tests are designed to home in on general intelligence, and they do it well. Yeah, people have beaten the point to death, many people with high IQs have bad social intelligence. OMG IQ is void. No, not at all. General intelligence, or g is what IQ tests go after. All it is is an overlap of different cognitive abilities. Many people think "How good you are at math has nothing to do with how good you are at music, or art, or math or writing." It turns out that that is total crap. On average, how good you are at art, does have something to do with how good you are at math, or language, or baking a pie. It's all related. That relationship is the basis of general intelligence. Brain size has a powerful relationship with IQ. Regardless of race, ethnicity, whatever. If you have a big brain, it means you will likely score better on an IQ test, than if your brain was smaller. There's a spot in the brain that scientists have recently dubbed the "g spot" because the size of this region (set pretty deep in the prefrontal lobes) correlates with IQ and g signficantly more powerfully than the general size of the brain. Social skills, on the other hand, is a much bigger, and more concerted effort, and has more to do with the efficacy of mirror neurons and the overall wiring of the brain, not a single spot. You can have a lot of general intelligence and still be a social dolt. When you say general intelligence, it means something to cognitive scientists, and what it means is probably different from what a regular layperson thinks.
I can deduce from your unsolicited emission three important things about you. Please answer this question: do you consider your quotation above to be one of average intelligence and maturity, by your own standards?
