Sex, Race And IQ: Off Limits?

how are we supposed to come up with a useful definition of stupidity, if we don't study the difference between the minds of bristol palin and billy bob thornton? or anna kournikova and plaxico burress? or kim jong il and oprah? lieberman uber alles!

http://politiqs.tommyjonq.com

What a wonderful, messy, minefield to wade into! Keeping my sense of humour and outrage suppressed.
First, what are we measuring? Intelligence has as many facets to its character as I have fingers on two hands, and many of those features of intelligence have no name, may never be named. But my single offered proof of that statement is I know of PhD s that I would certainly NOT trust my truck keys to, and 'others', meaning black, white, pink, purple, female, male, tall, short, young, old,,,,that I would and HAVE trusted with my life and sacred fortune.

IQ measures a narrow band of talents that mostly include raw problem solving ability, and how much info has been stuffed in between the ears. Neither by itself is useful, the combination may be powerful. But 'quick', acute, calm reason, social, the smile crinkle in the corner of Santa's eye,,,,,all of these are factors, none are measured.

What I take from this article is encouragement, because to me, the salient points expressed are the change. Change within each study, the change of perceived scores, the changes noted in testing through the years,,,,,,. ALL of these changes point to the plasticity of the human mind. The 'Flynn effect' is the bellwether of this important research. It says clearly either, "We are likely all equal." , or "We most likely don't know anything, because where or when will this trend stop."

My limited experience says women are smarter than men, but I grew up with three sisters and two mothers. (And I think any one of them could take me in a fair fight.)... Adopted children are less smart? Are all adopted children less smart? Are the adoption of black children by white families slowed or delayed for 'cultural reasons'. Such adoptions are CERTAINLY given addition scrutiny and delay here in Michigan. I would first attribute differences to lack of bonding in those first critical days BECAUSE of the delay. (How any one can see colour in an infant or a piece of music is beyond me.)

We NEED to continue study, honest study. I am already convinced, however, that based solely upon the datas implying change, that we are indeed all equal. In thirty years the 1 in 10,000 best at math have gone fro 13 to 1, m/f, to 3 to 1. In 70 years as much a 25 point increase in single country. Amazing. Wonderful.

Keep studying. I suspect, "We ain't seen nothin' yet."

This article does bring up some good points. But keep in mind that yes - the "peak" of the bell curve may be slightly different from one race to another, or between men and women. However, the "width" of the curve completely swamps out any statistical difference of the select people that are actually at the peak (which only includes the absolutely AVERAGE person, not the gifted on the high end of the curve or the not-too-bright people on the low end of the curve.).

Ralph Waldo Emerson proposed that every person has an innate genius and genius cannot be limited to the intellectual realm. He stated that it is tied into unique purposes contained within each life. I am not quoting him and this is my interpretation of what he said. I believe genius shows itself in many ways. I believe the great physicist Niels Bohr demonstrated genius, as did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., as did NFL giant Lawrence Taylor, as does the singer/songwriter Joni Mitchell, as do many people who walk unknown in society yet make a positive difference, as do many mothers in raising their children.

So that being said, what is the motive behind a search for genius? I like to believe that the scientific mind transcends racism and prejudice but apparently that is not always the case. Still, science needs to be allowed to pursue its course, the value of which can be seen in the Flynn Effect mentioned in the article. Also as mentioned in the article there are so many social influences that work upon a person's development. In the extreme case of feral children, children raised by animals, is it impossible to imagine they might have become astrophysicists had they been raised differently? Is the ability to survive in the wild not some form of genius? I believe the truth is that we cannot separate ourselves from our environments but it is how we develop ourselves within those environments to fulfill an individual purpose in life that determines genius. Furthermore, I believe that there is really no finish line at which point one reaches "genius" status. It's a process. The 4 minute mile is now rather commonplace amongst competitive runners. Human endeavor is an ongoing process integrated with the environment. Science needs to go where it takes itself even if it sometimes goes temporarily in the wrong direction or looks through too narrow a tunnel.

What a silly article. Skipping all the societal and political hoopla here, there's only one question (which the 'scientists' never ask): Is there a relation between genetics and intelligence? Of course the followup to that would be: Is there a relation between intelligence and being a valuable part of society? Should we study this, NO! Why, because you can't apply any scientific method to such a study. For any single person, there is no way to separate the physical analysis from their cultural background (i.e. life experience). Without that, you can't scientifically correlate genetics to behavior. Now, studying genetics to physical attributes, like strength, sight, endurance, and to health indicators is practical because that's comparing physical components to physical components (although life style and cultural influences can also affect physical attributes.

Thank you for this glimmer of objective reporting. I was surprised to find it in one of the new Administration's de facto propaganda rags. Our world's current trend toward "political correctness" is, of course, simply an ongoing effort to destroy free speech in favor of certain political ideologies. No branch of true science is safe from its finger-wagging, research fund-withdrawing shame tactics.

hangemhigh..take your racist a$$ to hell...i would outscore you on any test..

People who actually have done scientific research know how hard it is to isolate the impact of each factor on the research question. There are numerous factors affecting IQ simultaniously; so it is not simple to isolate how much each factor such as race, gender contributes to IQ. For instance: [ Boys outnumbered girls 13 to 1 in the top .01 percent of U.S. math scores 30 years ago; now that's down to 2.8 to 1 ] can also be explained by the fact that more girls are attending schools.