Stephen Lajoie (
Sun, 5 Feb 1995 06:22:38 GMT

In article <3gvsf0$>, J Lopez <> wrote:
>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."

Arguing this subject is like discussing evolution with the religious
addicted. The argument against evolution changes depending on who you are
talking to. In this case, the objections to _The Bell Curve_ change
depending on who you talk to.

>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?

Intelligence has not been shown to be a hard and fast indicator of
success. It is strongly correlated. There are always exceptions. I've
seen a number of highly intelligent people remain ignorant because they
never had to "work" to learn things. I was a lazybutt myself who never
had to work until I got to grad school.

>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?

Issues of human potential is always an iffy question.

Steve La Joie