J Lopez (
4 Feb 1995 07:37:52 -0500

In <> (Stephen Lajoie) writes:

>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

I can't believe you've been on this thread for months and you still don't
know the "opposition's position."

The opposition's position is that racial IQ differences have not been
proven to be attributed to genetic factors. Period. There may be
individuals within the loose "opposition" coalition who believe one or
more of the factors you outlined are more likely, but their positions are
not indicative of the opposition as a whole.

>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
>boobs", however.

Interesting you should say that. The rationale between the equivalence
of tested IQ and real-life intelligence is that tested IQ is supposed
to correlate highly with success. So, if you have encountered a sample
who are stuck flipping burgers (i.e. unsuccessful), but seem to have a
high IQ, then there is a low or negative correlation within that sample. On
what basis, then, can we determine that they are in fact intelligent,
and not false positive, or pseudo-intelligent?

It reminds me of the hackneyed Darryl Strawberry phrase, "wasted
potential." People always assume Strawberry had a high capacity to
perform, but he did not. Yet if he did not perform, then perhaps his
capacity was not as high as it was assumed. Perhaps his failure was
innate, no?

jlopez :: "How the hell can you write an essay on E. M. Forster with almost
total reference to Harold Robbins?" --Willy Russell