Re: IQ AND RACE? HUH?
Stephen Lajoie (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 4 Feb 1995 04:18:12 GMT
In article <email@example.com>,
Lord Zilch)@clark.net ( <thedavid> wrote:
>William Wilson (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>: In <email@example.com> thedavid (Lord Zilch)@clark.net ()
>[Bunch of my snipped; if you're smart you've saved it! ;) ]
>: >I just don't get it. What in the hell are you Bell Curvers basing
>: >your fatuities on? I remember an applicable quote (tho not it's
>: >source): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and
>: >STATISTICS." (Emphasis mine.) So go jump in a lake, willya? CHEEZ.
>: IQ is based upon statistical information. So you're saying IQ tests are
>: false measurements of intellect, right?
>My answer: NO, what I'm saying is that IQ tests are false measurements
>of a GENETIC or RACIAL basis for intelligence. I'd hold that what they
>_do_ measure is one's interest in the stuff in the tests--not just white-
>picket-fence culture but mainly one's desire to EXERCISE one's brain
>instead of just narcotizing it as so many of my fellow Americans do with
>TV and right-wing propaganda.
You offer no proof, no argument, just your personal opinion. And you call
that an argument? You feel that we should accept this as rebuttal to a
800 page book and years of statistical data?
What is amusing, it that you feel good about this.
>THEN you said:
>: (SUMMARY OF THIS POSTING)
>: This is a standard argument:
>: IQ doesn't exist!
>: But if it did, I'd be smarter than you!
>: (HOW'S THAT FOR LOGIC!?)
>My response: HAHAHAHA!!! Sorry, but if you mean to debate me you'd
>better dust off your thinking cap first.
Not a very good rebuttal. You are proud of that?
>I SAID (implicitly in my
>first post on this subject, explicitly a few lines ago) that IQ _does_
>measure _something_, but that correlating that "something" with skin
>color is really one helluva stretch. And quite ILLOGICAL to boot.
The correlation has been statistically proven. The argument centers now
on it's source being genetic or environmental. I believe the opposition's
position is that it is attributed to physical, cultural, and racial
>: BTW, how many times do you have to take an IQ test before you can use
>: words like "consistently" when referring to your scores. For someone
>: who has no faith in IQ you seem quite committed to it.
>Hmm...I'm 32 and started taking those damn things in 2nd grade. And
>when I found I did well--and that all these adults around me made such
>a fuss about how well I did!--I took them every chance I could get.
>I dimly recall being around 10 and taKing four _different_ IQ tests in
>a WEEK, including a couple specifically designed to _exclude_ "honky"
You do realize, of course, that the IQ test they give to kids is a test
that is normed around mental age, and those given to adults is one a
distribution of the entire adult population normed around a score of 100.
Your racial slur is a keen indicator of your attitude.
>I lack a tally of the total but I think it's been
>a little over a dozen times; when the tests they could find to give me
>got too repetitious I kinda lost interest--tho a year ago this week I
>did Mensa's by-mail pre-test which resulted in my lowest score ever
>(the 137 figure from last post). And BTW, what interested me in Mensa
>was looking for a "SMART" young woman with pretty eyes & nice boobs,
>but since I moved to a garden spot across the street from Johns Hopkins
>University paying some social club to let me cruise their gatherings
>doesn't seem as imperative.
Ah, Mensa. Yes. I've known many of very intelligent people who ended up
flipping burgers because things came to easy for them, and they never
learned to work. They were quite sucessful at finding women with "nice
>Now, will the NEXT nazi goliath come front-&-center? My SO is busy tonight.
> So white of me,
This is a troll, right? If your argument is to call people a nazi, then they
can refute your "argument" by calling you a name?
Nah, I don't want to lower myself to your level.
Steve La Joie