What you see is that most kids that belong to the poorer part of society do not go to college or uni. Even though I realize that money is a big issue here, do you think that those kids just are, in general, less intelligent than kids that do have all the opportunities?

It's not unlikely imo that if you grow up with the idea that you're not going to college, you will be likely to not display as much curiosity about the world and things, as you might if you had a goal and a purpose.

What are your thoughts about this?

[This message has been edited by tam (edited 07-31-2001).]

I'm not sure about this. I know that people can adopt children from countries where the child might come from generations of poverty and when that child is nurtured and educated often tends to exceed what is considered normal. So I definitely don't think there is a correlation as far as genetics is concerned. You do have a point that when less emphasis is put on education that may hinder a childs ability/desire to learn. That in of itself does not mean the children are not highly intelligent. There are many instances where people raised in poverty use a different kind of intelligence to succeed and may become very powerfull. I'm not real sure, just my thoughts.

------------------
"Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them"
Martin Luther King Jr.
"You cannot separate peace from freedom, because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom" -Malcom X

I think it's a SOCIAL pressure for poorer kids not to go to college or better themselves. No one in their peer group wants to be ousted for having dreams. It's the same way for "rich" kids who DON'T want to go to school. They'll go to college because they feel they're "supposed to".

As far as money being an issue, well, it depends on how poor you are (and your race). In America, if you're lower middle class (and white and male), you're screwed because you probably make just enough money NOT to qualify for any grants, scholarships, or other moneies. However, the more poor you are, the more money you qualify for. So, if you're DIRT POOR, you can probably go for free to a State school . . . and many schools include room and board in that.

If you want to make some serious green, be dirt poor, minority, and BRILLIANT. If you have the grades and the drive, you can, more or less, make a living out of going to college. I have a bud doing that right now. He's a semester or two away from getting 3 or 4 degrees . . . been in undergraduate studies for 6 maybe 7 years with a 4.0. He spends most of his time looking for grants and other "left over" money, and gets a lot of it. His qualifications are incredible. There's nothing like making the system work for you!

Dave, you make some good points.
In the end though I dont think it really matters. Driven and goal oriented people come from all walks of life. America is the hallmark of success stories where people have gone from rags to riches.

If anyone has the desire to go to college here, they can. It may take some effort in some cases but it can be done.

My pop grew up as a poor apple farmers son. They dropped him off in the city and essentially said "theres college".
Eventually, he was so driven that when the time came when they powers that be decide who gets to into medical school, he arrogantly (if thats what you want to call it) went to the Dean and Chancellors houses, knocked on the door, introduced himself and who he was and so on and soforth.
Needless to say, he got in.

Luck is what happens when opportunity meets preparation....or something like that!
Anyways, I honestly believe if anyone has the desire and is willing to pay the price they can acheive anything.

------------------
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand

I think the problem may be the attitude difference between communities. Poorer folks may have other things on their minds than getting straight A's.

many of the poorer cultures don't value education or there children like we do. I think it is that simple.

------------------
Is there such a thing as a good Commie or a good Nazi?

FRY MUMIA!

If anarchists could ever organize, the'd be dangerous. Cosmo

If you think sex is a pain in the ass,..... you've been doing it wrong!

Originally posted by Cosmo:
many of the poorer cultures don't value education or there children like we do. I think it is that simple.


Hmm, I will have to disagree with that latter part Cosmo. poorer cultures don't value their children as much as we do?

We live in a dispicable country as far as the family unit goes. This is going to be a blanket statement, and I know we have lots of good parents on this site, but the US today has predominantly dumped children off at daycare and in front of the TV as opposed to raising them. We fight over assetts with parents, over children with xwives, and dump our elderly into care facilities.

You will NOT see that as rampant as you do in western cultures in a lot of poorer cultures. My prime example would be india. They are a very impoverished nation, compared to lots of countries, yet the family unit is one of the strongest in the world.

Not to mention the focus for those that can afford it on school.



------------------
Manu Narayan

What is 'intelligence'? According to the people who believe it exists (in the IQ sense, primarily), it's what's tested by IQ tests. And what do IQ tests test? Intelligence, of course. Circular logic, anyone?
I'm actually taking a whole course on this subject right now. Basically, what we've discovered so far is that IQ is not really an accurate measure of how smart a person is - many IQ tests actually test knowledge, and much of this knowledge is considered high status knowledge, which is available to the socioeconomically elite but not to the lower classes. So when both classes are tested using some IQ test written by the intellectual elite, the scores come out uneven. Doesn't mean lower class people are stupid, just that the tests are biased.

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

Yup intelligence is fairly subjective. Give me an IQ test in Spanish and of course ill score extremely low.

------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

No Manu, I didn't say all poorer cultures, I said many. You cite a very valid example. But how about white trash here in the US? Or urban black culture? You actually help[ make my point. In my limited experience, indians who come here do very well economically, and excell in taking advantage of education. Poverty is no excuse for the breakdown in the family unit. (it certainly doesn't help though). The breakdown in the family unit is probably the cause of poverty, not the other way around. You can cite racism in the case of blacks, but you can't in the case of white trash, and yet they are nearly identical cultures, and nearly identical in terms of crime, income, etc. I have done quite a bit of research on this, and had it in my head to do a book, but as you might guess, it is nearly impossible to document.

------------------
Is there such a thing as a good Commie or a good Nazi?

FRY MUMIA!

If anarchists could ever organize, the'd be dangerous. Cosmo

If you think sex is a pain in the ass,..... you've been doing it wrong!

Ahh, thansk for clearing that up cosmo.

I know you're being general, so I don't agree with some of the generalizations, but I see what you're saying.

------------------
Manu Narayan

I do that a lot, but we generally talk in generalizations about general situations. (did that even make sense?)If we talked about exceptions we would never get througha discussion. it is easier and actually more accurate todeal in generalizations. For instance if we talked about urban culture, would it be more accurate to discuss Colin Powell or Rodney King? I'm sure you get the idea. I will admit I can be abrupt and cold in my assessments, which gets me a lot of criticism, even from my wife, but i try to be accurate in my facts.

------------------
Is there such a thing as a good Commie or a good Nazi?

FRY MUMIA!

If anarchists could ever organize, the'd be dangerous. Cosmo

If you think sex is a pain in the ass,..... you've been doing it wrong!

A Big Argument -- last shot I saw was the book "The Bell Curve" followed by another book(don't remember title)that rebutted "The Bell Curve" conclusions.

The book had 20 odd chapters, and all but the final chapter did not look at Afro-Americans, but concluded that "IQ" correlates more to genetics than any other factor. After the last chapter though the conclusion was drawn that Orientals were a Standard Deviation or so above caucasian average, other US minorities a Standard deviation below.

The other conclusion was that a Standard Deviation above had a major correlation to success vs failure in like endeavors.

------------------
Every day above ground is a good day.
B.Dylan

Please note the conclusions are for statistical significance, NOT for individuals. I've never seen any correlation of IQ to strength of will and purposefullness. That is individuals in competition CAN overcome an opponent's IQ headstart.

All this says for individuals is: given exactly equal in all regards competitors, in the long-run you will make money betting on the one who has a 6 point IQ advantage.

------------------
Every day above ground is a good day.
B.Dylan

Actually, 'The Bell Curve' has been proven to be almost 100% inaccurate by several other sources. It rests its claims on faulty assumptions and actually fudged most of the data they used to prove that white people are smarter than blacks, and that Asians are the smartest. Basically, all the new findings indicate that there really isn't a solid 'IQ' - that intelligence is not something that can be measured by the tests they're currently using, for a number of reasons. So a person's IQ really doesn't determine anything at all...just that they were able to access the type of high status knowledge that is tested by IQ tests (which isn't a measure of how smart you are, but how knowledgeable you are, based on your socioeconomic status, among other things).

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

As I recall, "The Bell Curve Debate" -- the rebuttal I mentioned -- contains the assertions that posit near 100% inaccuracies in "The Bell Curve".

As I said before, what the study does not get attacked for is the conclusion that, 'given 2 individuals of exactly equal abilities other than (by SAT, GRE, or a vast multitude of tests that correlate to a mythical intelligence quotient), one has a "100 iq" the other "106 iq" in a fair competition you will, over time, make money betting on the individual w/ the 106.

------------------
Every day above ground is a good day.
B.Dylan

Hammegk, (how the heck do you pronounce that anyway?) everything I've read pretty much supports your position on this. I had occassion to take an IQ rtest as part of a local University study I volunteered for. I honestly don't recall any questions that I would call economic class specific. i'm not saying there wern't any, I just don't recall. It is also possible I wouldn't recognize them, as I was born poor.

------------------
Is there such a thing as a good Commie or a good Nazi?

FRY MUMIA!

If anarchists could ever organize, the'd be dangerous. Cosmo

If you think sex is a pain in the ass,..... you've been doing it wrong!

Ap., do you really believe that some attribute in humans, IQ, can't be analyzed any more than say, height?

At least some of the (PC) rebuttals is that there is no rationale to slice the raw data into Asian/caucasian/other non-caucasian.

Remove those distinctions and the underlying analysis still holds IN A STATISTICAL SENSE.

Let's run a thought experiment. I have 25 candidates and I want you choose 2 of them, 1 to be your champion. The 2 will play checkers, and the game won't begin until you agree that both are as adept at checkers as they probably will ever be. You will not see the people, just the moves on a computer screen.

The game is this: you will get food and water only if your champion wins (1 game/day).

Lets assume the 25 are randomly selected out of any similar group-- say seniors in a class of 2000. Once you know the 25, all I will tell you about them is their "IQ" using some correlator to the same "IQ test".

I suspect you will choose the "highest IQ" as your champion and the lowest as his opponent.

Cos., GK will work-- my ID comes from an old IBM mainframe world naming convention for Logonids.

------------------
Every day above ground is a good day.
B.Dylan

Until we have the technology to measure every factor the human brain has, why bother trying to measure intelligence?

While I value my intelligence above other traits I have, that is not the whole value of the person. It takes a variety of people to **** up this world.

------------------
Blind faith can lead one to the light, or plung them into eternal darkness.

Originally posted by ChaoticThoughts:
Until we have the technology to measure every factor the human brain has, why bother trying to measure intelligence?



That argument doesnt make any sense. The entire philosophy behind scientific understanding is that you measure what you can, and try to explain what you observe. Thus, we may not be able to explain every aspect of intelligence, but performance on IQ tests does reveal information. I do not dispute, however,that we may not be getting exactly the information that some people claim the tests provide. Just because we do not have a full understanding does not mean that the data is not helpful. That is why we should still bother to measure "intelligence": to help us learn more about intelligence.

True, but IQ is completely subjective. It was concieved of as a measure of literacy abilities for school childern, and has since blossomed into a variety of tests.

IQ is subjective, its a psychological characteristic, not a physical one. Its awfull tough to compare the IQ of oh say someone who is blind and has lived in poverty with someone who grew up with a bastion of private tutors and holds a PhD from Princeton or something.

As far as The Bell Curve book, sure they had some findings but then some other books had contradictory findings. Obviously the book is shit because it cant quantify race other than on a self respondant basis where subjects identify their own race, and even then the respondants fail to quantify their races with scientific criteria. And even if for some reason say people with black hair scored higher on average than people with blond hair, that doesnt prove anything because their are so many corroborating variables and there is no evidence to make a genetic connection.



------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

The IQ test was invented to measure someones ability to learn, not their literacy abilities, those are measured by a comprehensive reading test.

------------------
Is there such a thing as a good Commie or a good Nazi?

FRY MUMIA!

If anarchists could ever organize, the'd be dangerous. Cosmo

If you think sex is a pain in the ass,..... you've been doing it wrong!

If we understand what information our tests are telling us, then they are perfectly valid for use. The biggest problem is when people (often not the people associated with creating the test) assume that the test tells us one thing when it really tells another.

Here is something to think about:
When the medical field was more primitive, how did scientists measure intelligence? They measured the human head. Somehow they thought it was related, and spent years measuring the size of peoples heads. Did they learn anything? Yes, there was no relation.

Now consider how far our science has brought us. We understand much more, we have cat scans and many other advanced tools. Then a group of people what to use a pencile and paper, and ask others several questions, to measure IQ.

It is a primitive method, imo. And you can test millions of people, and attempt to show one result or another. But the fact is, intelligence cannot be measured by having them answer some questions.

The most promising tests I have seen were:

Cat scans of drug users, tumor patients, and the affects.

The second was a group of scientists who who take a section of brain, put it in a solution to feed it, and plug it into a computer. They were able to simulate a digital world for the section of brain, and it was able to walk around in it.

And the third was a sensor that was able to decode the messages sent from the brain. By holding a sensor, the computer was able to read simple commands from the brain. Like left, right, up, down. They made a telepathic video game.

We have advanced ways of measuring intelligence, but you would settle for a primitive, traditional method.

------------------
Blind faith can lead one to the light, or plung them into eternal darkness.

One is more advanced because it uses batteries? I think the test is ONE way to predict performance in a given environment. Don't think it was meant for a whole lot more than that.

Any way the original question was are poor people dumb or are they dumb because they are poor?

------------------
Is there such a thing as a good Commie or a good Nazi?

FRY MUMIA!

If anarchists could ever organize, the'd be dangerous. Cosmo

If you think sex is a pain in the ass,..... you've been doing it wrong!

For background, so we can agree we are discussing the same thing:

In 1905, a French psychologist by the name of Alfred Binet, working with a physician-associate, Theodore Simon, developed the Binet Simon Test designed to measure the intelligence of retarded children, based upon their observations that.
(1) Just as children grow taller as they grow older, they grow more mentally capable
as they grow older; and
(2) Some children can perform at age and equivalent-grade levels above their
chronological ages, while other children perform at age and equivalent-grade levels
below their chronological ages. For example, a few 6-year-olds could perform as well
on the Binet Simon mental tests as the average 8-year-old, while a few 6-year-olds
could only perform as well as the average 4-year-old.
In 1911, the concept of "mental age" (as distinguished from "chronological age") was introduced. The 6-year-old who performed as well as the average 8-year-old was assigned a mental age of 8, while the 6-year-old who performed only as well as a 4-year-old was assigned a mental age of 4.

What Is "IQ"?
It was also observed that the gaps between children's mental ages and their chronological ages widened as the children got older. The 6-year-old with the mental age of 8 had a mental age of 12 by the time he was 9 and a mental age of 16 by the time he was12. Similarly, the 6-year-old with a mental age of 4 had a mental age of 6 when he was 9 and a mental age of 8 when he was 12. In 1912, the German psychologist, William Stern, noticed that even though the gap between mental age and chronological age widens as a child matures, the ratio of mental age to chronological age remains constant (and, as we will see, remains essentially constant throughout life). This constant ratio of mental age divided by chronological age was given the name "Intelligence Quotient". Actually, the intelligence quotient is defined as 100 times the Mental Age (MA) divided by the Chronological Age (CA).

IQ = 100 MA/CA.

Mental Age for Adults
At approximately. the age of 16, mental age, like height, stops increasing. Until 1960, it was customary to use 16 as the divisor for mental age among adults. Actually, certain mental functions increase slowly and slightly after the age of 16, peaking in the 20's, with others remaining stable or even rising slightly up to the age of 60 or so. With some individuals, vocabulary may increase over time.

The Practical Significance of IQ
The average IQ of the population as a whole is, by definition, 100. IQs range from 0 to above 200, and among children, to above 250. However, about 50% of the population have IQs between 89 and 111, and about 80% of the population have IQs ranging between 80 and 120, with 10% lying below 80, and 10% falling above 120.
For IQs below 120, IQ is the best predictor of socioeconomic status of any psychometric measurement. In more complex jobs, IQ is better than even education or experience at predicting job performance. In her article "The General Intelligence Factor", Scientific American Presents "Exploring Intelligence", pg. 24, 1999, Linda Gottfredson states,

"Adults in the bottom 5% of the IQ distribution (below 75) are very difficult to train and are not competitive for any occupation on the basis of ability. Serious problems in training low-IQ military recruits during World War II led Congress to ban enlistment from the lowest 10% (below 80) of the population, and no civilian occupation in modern economies routinely recruits its workers from that below-80 range. Current military enlistment standards exclude any individual whose IQ is below about 85."

"Persons of average IQ (between 90 and 100) are not competitive for most professional and executive-level work but are easily trained for the bulk of jobs in the American economy. By contrast, individuals in the top 5 percent of the adult population can essentially train themselves, and few occupations are beyond their reach mentally."

"People with IQs between 75 and 90 are 88 times more likely to drop out of high school, seven times more likely to be jailed, and five times more likely as adults to live in poverty than people with IQs between 110 and 125. The 75-to-90 IQ woman is eight times more likely to become a chronic welfare recipient, and four times as likely to bear an illegitimate child than the 110-to-125-IQ woman."

These datasets have a lot of French-Anglo-Caucasian underpinnings but are not considered controversial at least for those groups.

Over the past 40 years, a more global indicator called "G" has been under definition. G factors when combined are correlated to group survival, and contain mental and physical components. Various IQ tests correlate more or less strongly with "G" in the mental domain.

Statistically (NOT VALID FOR INDIVIDUALS)higher IQ itself is a very strong correlator to 'ability' to better conduct business/economic/personal matters in our US/European world.

------------------
Every day above ground is a good day.
B.Dylan

[This message has been edited by hammegk (edited 10-29-2001).]

Originally posted by Cosmo:
Any way the original question was are poor people dumb or are they dumb because they are poor?

Well that was not really the origional question. But if it was, my answer would be:

It can go both ways. Someone who is dumb usually can not make much money, they have to work harder to make money. Poor people cannot afford as much education, so are limited. But there are acceptions.

------------------
Blind faith can lead one to the light, or plung them into eternal darkness.

Originally posted by tam:
What you see is that most kids that belong to the poorer part of society do not go to college or uni. Even though I realize that money is a big issue here, do you think that those kids just are, in general, less intelligent than kids that do have all the opportunities?

It's not unlikely imo that if you grow up with the idea that you're not going to college, you will be likely to not display as much curiosity about the world and things, as you might if you had a goal and a purpose.

What are your thoughts about this?

[This message has been edited by tam (edited 07-31-2001).]

When I was in college I knew a lot of really dumb people. One of the most ignorant people I know sports a law degree. I also know several people who never been to college who are very bright. I think that Bill Gates has only a high school education.


------------------
If thinking for myself is a crime I plead guilty.

Originally posted by Criminal:
I think that Bill Gates has only a high school education.

Actually, harvard. But he may have dropped out, I forget.

------------------
Blind faith can lead one to the light, or plung them into eternal darkness.

Well regardless of whether IQ can be correlated with statistics to one thing or another, i have litte use for it. I dont judge people by their IQ, whether its pertinent or not, id rather hear somebodies ideas or examine their accomplishments/actions than rate them with some silly standardized test. I fail to see how some hand eye co-ordination excercises and vocabulary tests can purport to define the vast and mystifiying potential of the human mind.

I rate very highly on these silly tests, yet i have very poor ability to comprehend mathematics, foreign languages, music, physical and life sciences.

------------------
"He could not plead want of employment, nor incapacity of getting his bread in an honest way, but frankly own'd it was to get rid of the disagreeable superiority of some masters he was acquainted with and the love of novelty and change."

William Defoe on Bartholomew Roberts career of piracy

And for the first time, life will triumph over death

My observation here would be that social status DOES have some effect on your intelligence, but from what I've seen in every area I've lived in, it's because all the better schools and better teachers tend to end up in higher end neighborhoods. Those communities can usually put more money into their school systems. Needless to say, that's only a general rule based on my observations.

I certainly don't believe that your social status is the beginning and end of your capacity to learn or intelligence either. It largely depends on the individual's desire to learn, and a million other factors.

FROM Criminal-QUOTE
When I was in college I knew a lot of really dumb people. One of the most ignorant people I know sports a law degree. I also know several people who never been to college who are very bright. I think that Bill Gates has only a high school education. UNQUOTE

IQ tends to predict your scholastic "level of incompetance" but does not predict whether you will achieve it. Will-power seems to be needed; witout that, who cares how high your IQ is.

I'm not going to dig up the statistics, but recall that under Mr/Ms Clinton per/pupil expenditues soared, and much of that went to Head-Start and similar programs.

This is the real postulate of the The Bell Curve; why do we direct more resources at working with underachievers than we do with the gifted? Who do you think will be running the power structure in the future? Someone mentioned elsewhere in these threads that 1% of the population controlled government & business. Any bets that this bunch has higher than average IQs -- and even more overwhelming -- since by luck DID enjoy higher than average Social-Economic-Status(SES)the higher IQs were trained, beginning with pre-natal nutrition, and ending with some reasonably supportive home life.

Doggone it, life ISN'T fair!

Here in NJ, we spend more per pupil in "special needs" districts than in weathy districts. We spend about $13k= in poor districts. Results are miserable. My wife is a teacher in one of those districts. She will tell you that to do well in school, you have to have parents who care about your education. Reading to children at an early age helps. Helping with homework is a biggie. Being involved. It is tougher for kids in one parent families, and many poor families are one parent, or "transient" parents. Couple thta with some cultures dissing education or achievement, you have a formula for poor performance.

just to add my two cents here, I think IQ tests are basically crap. I've had several IQ tests administered by different shrinks and the results vary widely. (115-145) Not to mention the fact that the content of the test was different each time. Some did rely on knowledge and some relied more on reasoning.My point is, unless you know exactly which test was given to two different people, there is no basis for comparison.

jw>>>>>>>>>>>>
...IQ tests are basically crap. I've had several IQ tests administered by different shrinks and the results vary widely. (115-145)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Methinks thou dust protest too much"; if the results had been (85-115) would you have posted THAT? Or, would you even be conversing on this, or any, board?

From my favorite treatise:
No.16
5. Each state of life must be trained within strict limits corresponding to its destination and work in life. The OCCASIONAL GENIUS HAS ALWAYS MANAGED AND ALWAYS WILL MANAGE TO SLIP THROUGH INTO OTHER STATES OF LIFE, BUT IT IS THE MOST PERFECT FOLLY FOR THE SAKE OF THIS RARE OCCASIONAL GENIUS TO LET THROUGH INTO RANKS FOREIGN TO THEM THE UNTALENTED …

As to the original ? "is IQ dependent on your social status" unfortunately the answer is 'that depends' -- on pre-natal care and on environmental richness and care for the first few years in particular, and later on continuing choices that seem available. Assuming a genius-level individual survives to adulthood, and overcomes horrible parenting/peers/teachers society will discover how his IQ (ability to learn) LEARNED things, and may not agree that the lessons learned were morally and/or legally appropriate.

And yes, we can now just agree to dis-agree on the relevance of IQ.;)

Originally posted by hammegk
For background, so we can agree we are discussing the same thing: In 1905, a French psychologist by the name of Alfred Binet, working with a physician-associate, Theodore Simon, developed the Binet Simon Test designed to measure the intelligence of retarded children, based upon their observations that.


Exactly. Binet designed the tests for retarded children and NO ONE else. It was the German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt that came up with the idea of IQ (Intelligence Quotient). In addition, Binet COULD NOT define what intelligence was and DID NOT agree with Wundt’s application of IQ.


On IQ Tests (today) being "status" biased: There are "Spatial" IQ tests that don't have "high status knowledge" imbedded within them. How do you explain performance on these kinds of exams? How can a shape or a pattern be knowledge biased?

On Bill Gates: He dropped out of Harvard. That's where he met Steve Ballmer.

CodyChaos>>>>>>>>>>>
.... I dont judge people by their IQ, whether its pertinent or not, id rather hear somebodies ideas or examine their accomplishments/actions than rate them with some silly standardized test. I fail to see how some hand eye co-ordination excercises and vocabulary tests can purport to define the vast and mystifiying potential of the human mind.

I rate very highly on these silly tests, yet i have very poor ability to comprehend math [etc etc]
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I'm curious. How DO you judge people? Why do you think someones' 'ideas' or accomplishments/actions' are not based on IQ, the ability to learn.

On what do you base the conclusion that human mind potential is NOT measureable/predictable? Psychometrics presents vast amounts of data to support these IQ conclusions --

"Current military enlistment standards exclude any individual whose IQ is below about 85."

"Persons of average IQ (between 90 and 100) are not competitive for most professional and executive-level work but are easily trained for the bulk of jobs in the American economy. By contrast, individuals in the top 5 percent of the adult population can essentially train themselves, and few occupations are beyond their reach mentally."

"People with IQs between 75 and 90 are 88 times more likely to drop out of high school, seven times more likely to be jailed, and five times more likely as adults to live in poverty than people with IQs between 110 and 125. The 75-to-90 IQ woman is eight times more likely to become a chronic welfare recipient, and four times as likely to bear an illegitimate child than the 110-to-125-IQ woman."

Which categories above do you usually associate with to even observe their ideas-accomplishments???

Finally, if you DID NOT "rate very highly on these silly tests" would you advertise that fact ????
:confused:

The crux of the matter may be that although IQ measures how well you CAN learn, your environment is wholly responsible for what you DO learn. Any arguments to the contrary on this point????

I'm curious. How DO you judge people? Why do you think someones' 'ideas' or accomplishments/actions' are not based on IQ, the ability to learn.

Well, if I wanted to judge how smart they were, I would not ask what their score was on an IQ test. I would talk to them, ask them about what type of business they're in, and their education, etc.

Some of your mind might be able to score high on a test. But if you have a balance of creativity and other aspects, your intelligence has a better potential.

Originally posted by ChaoticThoughts


Well, if I wanted to judge how smart they were, I would not ask what their score was on an IQ test. I would talk to them, ask them about what type of business they're in, and their education, etc.

Some of your mind might be able to score high on a test. But if you have a balance of creativity and other aspects, your intelligence has a better potential.

That is certainly truye of peopel you meet. I would venture a GUESS that most of the times these tests ar eused by pooeple who never meet the testee. ie, school admins and such. This is the case in life too, you get to send in a resume and the kpeople who read them never get to meet you, unlees they want to interview you, so you've already been judged.

I generally judge people on about 5 minutes of conversation. Education means nothing to me. Spend enough money and you can buy a degree. Type of business means nothing to me. I've met EXTREMELY ontelligent people who are construction workers. WHy? Because they CHOOSE to be construction workers. People measure success by different standards. I prefer to talk to someone and find out how their minds work. That is the only way you can really know about a person.

Some of the smartest people I know havent spent a day in college.

Some of the dumbest people I know have spent years in college.

Originally posted by hammegk
CodyChaos>>>>>>>>>>>
.... I dont judge people by their IQ, whether its pertinent or not, id rather hear somebodies ideas or examine their accomplishments/actions than rate them with some silly standardized test. I fail to see how some hand eye co-ordination excercises and vocabulary tests can purport to define the vast and mystifiying potential of the human mind.

I rate very highly on these silly tests, yet i have very poor ability to comprehend math [etc etc]
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I'm curious. How DO you judge people? Why do you think someones' 'ideas' or accomplishments/actions' are not based on IQ, the ability to learn.

On what do you base the conclusion that human mind potential is NOT measureable/predictable? Psychometrics presents vast amounts of data to support these IQ conclusions --

"Current military enlistment standards exclude any individual whose IQ is below about 85."

"Persons of average IQ (between 90 and 100) are not competitive for most professional and executive-level work but are easily trained for the bulk of jobs in the American economy. By contrast, individuals in the top 5 percent of the adult population can essentially train themselves, and few occupations are beyond their reach mentally."

"People with IQs between 75 and 90 are 88 times more likely to drop out of high school, seven times more likely to be jailed, and five times more likely as adults to live in poverty than people with IQs between 110 and 125. The 75-to-90 IQ woman is eight times more likely to become a chronic welfare recipient, and four times as likely to bear an illegitimate child than the 110-to-125-IQ woman."

Which categories above do you usually associate with to even observe their ideas-accomplishments???

Finally, if you DID NOT "rate very highly on these silly tests" would you advertise that fact ????
:confused:

The crux of the matter may be that although IQ measures how well you CAN learn, your environment is wholly responsible for what you DO learn. Any arguments to the contrary on this point????

Thats the whole thing though, I could really give less of a shit about other people as long as they arent trying to interfere with me. So I really dont spend much time "judging" people (nor do i have some se criteria), I like nice people and people who I think are "cool", people who I think are raging dickheads I try not to associate with.


As far as psychometrics I really have no knowledge of the subject. I was under the impression that people could not explain how the brain works entirely. If you know of persuasive evidence on the topic I would be interested to read it. From what I know of neuro science though I am not aware of a way to predict whether a child will concieve a new mathematical theorem, or become president. Nor am I aware of any way they can predict whether you will be straight or gay, optimistic or pessimistic, an athelete or a scholar, a painter or a pianist, a leader or a follower, liberal or conservative etc etc. If IQ were such a vital stat you would think theyd make more use of it, Ive never heard of any job where they ask you your IQ, they dont ask for it on college apps, they dont ask for it at McDonalds, nor on resumes, or when they consider your mortgage loan, etc etc Perhaps IQ is the great untapped measuring stick of human potential, but I doubt it. Like I say if i am mistaken in my observations I be interested in the truth.

Now it may very well be true that people who score highly on IQ tests are on AVERAGE more successfull in western capitalist societies. But frankly I could care less because, there are plenty of peoplewith high IQs who never achieve monentary, academic, or even personall sucess. There are also people lacking exceptional IQ scores who accumulate plenty of cash and power. One needs look no further than the President and Vice President of the united states to find two men who have become quite successfull despite mediocre academic achievements. Cheney dropped out of Yale and Bush squeaked by on a C average, I dont know their IQ scores (i bet Bush didnt do real well in the linguistic or timed sections) but had you profiled them in their college days I doubt you would have predicted that they would become two of the most powerfull men in the world.

On another note there are several different types of IQs that can be measured. Musical, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Bodily-kinesthetic, and Spatial.
Most basic IQ tests only measure Logical-Mathematical and Linguistic and occasionally a bit of spatial. There are some brilliant professors, writers, mathematicians etc out there but many would fail miserably at brokering multi-million dollar movie deals, organizing corporate structures, writing operas, playing professional soccer, walking a tight rope, designing beautifull buildings, counseling the depressed, arguing in a courtroom, or scoring with "hot babes." Conversly people who do well at some of those things dont neccessarily have to be real good at others.

Originally posted by CodyChaos


As far as psychometrics I really have no knowledge of the subject. I was under the impression that people could not explain how the brain works entirely. If you know of persuasive evidence on the topic I would be interested to read it. From what I know of neuro science though I am not aware of a way to predict whether a child will concieve a new mathematical theorem, or become president. Nor am I aware of any way they can predict whether you will be straight or gay, optimistic or pessimistic, an athelete or a scholar, a painter or a pianist, a leader or a follower, liberal or conservative etc etc.
The psychometrics I refer to are to the best of my understanding non-invasive testing and work in the aggregate, w/ little to predict for any specific individual.
If IQ were such a vital stat you would think theyd make more use of it, Ive never heard of any job where they ask you your IQ, they dont ask for it on college apps, they dont ask for it at McDonalds, nor on resumes, or when they consider your mortgage loan, etc etc Perhaps IQ is the great untapped measuring stick of human potential, but I doubt it. Like I say if i am mistaken in my observations I be interested in the truth.
Military testing is strongly correlated to IQ, SAT etal are strongly correlated to IQ, exec jobs often require a battery of tests, several strongly correlted to IQ. McDs? , why bother -- answer is irrelevant. Resumes/Mts apps, etc by appearance @ content probably correlate strongly to IQ ( I'm unaware of any studies here).

Now it may very well be true that people who score highly on IQ tests are on AVERAGE more successfull in western capitalist societies.
Hmm, we agree on this!!
But frankly I could care less because, there are plenty of peoplewith high IQs who never achieve monentary, academic, or even personall sucess. There are also people lacking exceptional IQ scores who accumulate plenty of cash and power. One needs look no further than the President and Vice President of the united states to find two men who have become quite successfull despite mediocre academic achievements. Cheney dropped out of Yale and Bush squeaked by on a C average, I dont know their IQ scores (i bet Bush didnt do real well in the linguistic or timed sections) but had you profiled them in their college days I doubt you would have predicted that they would become two of the most powerfull men in the world.

We disagree here about the probable IQs of Bush-Cheney. Again, on specific individuals, IQ is NOT CERTAIN, just a strongly correlated indicator of (evolutionary) success.


On another note there are several different types of IQs that can be measured. Musical, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Bodily-kinesthetic, and Spatial. Most basic IQ tests only measure Logical-Mathematical and Linguistic and occasionally a bit of spatial. There are some brilliant professors, writers, mathematicians etc out there but many would fail miserably at brokering multi-million dollar movie deals, organizing corporate structures, writing operas, playing professional soccer, walking a tight rope, designing beautifull buildings, counseling the depressed, arguing in a courtroom, or scoring with "hot babes." Conversly people who do well at some of those things dont neccessarily have to be real good at others.

We again agree(specific indivuals, remember)!!! I'm unaware of studies correlating all of the 7 categories to IQ, but I'd bet positive correlation exists. 'Idiot Savants' are another problem.

Somthing else that's not been studied so far as I know is 'nice-guyness' or at least 'non-*******ness' to IQ.:D