Re: IQ, Race, and Rushton: Sorry what was the Question?

Michelle B. Golden (mgolden@UNIX.CC.EMORY.EDU)
Fri, 21 Oct 1994 11:09:31 -0400

EXCELLENT question!!

It behooves us as anthropologists to look at underlying assumptions. It's
especially important given our status vis a vis "intelligence"
(academics/teachers/"knowledge producers.")

This question also points to a more subtle form of racism than the one
this thread has been discussing--but a more pervasive one. What's defined
as intelligent? Reasonable? Mature? Justifiable?

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but it really brightens my day when someone
questions underlying assumptions like this. Thanks, John!
Michelle (mgolden@unix.cc.emory.edu)

(No idea what size my head is, though. Hats look terrible on me.)

On Fri, 21 Oct 1994, JOHN WALDMANN wrote:

> Pin-head here, (51 cm Hat size).
>
> The Thread on rushton has focused for some reason on the relativly
> mute point of race. We all now that there is a miniscule and purely
> anecdotal relationship between race, genetics and culture. Genetics
> may play a part in intelligence as there is less room in small heads
> for ideas, concepts and coherent energy to get lost in, or distorted
> by dispersion.
>
> The really dumb question (I think Anthropology is about asking these
> at opportune moments) is: "WHAT DO ANTHROPOLOGISTS MEAN BY
> INTELLIGENCE?"
>
> *one or two postings implied some correlation between notions of IQ
> and culture. I personally feel that culture and environment is
> determinative of "success" (with genetics as an aspect of environment)
> so if IQ measures coorellate with success.
> ? Does this mean success in multiple cultural domains or in "White
> Euro- American" society alone? What do we mean by success, how do
> we measure it -is it reproductive, commercial/fiscal, political, or
> moral & societial? --If the last two,then in my opinion "white-
> Euro-Americans" society failed the global IQ test!
> (witness Central America, the War on Drugs, and the Gulf War for
> starters-High marks for technology (85%), low on resource management
> (33.3 %), zero for social responsability and moral prudence (well
> maybe the obligatory 5% for trying).
> ??
> # The truth is not always offensive
>
> # But it more likely to be
> John Waldmann
> Auckland University # recognised when it offends.
>