Re: IQ AND RACE? HUH?
Stephen Lajoie (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 6 Feb 1995 05:19:20 GMT
In article <email@example.com>, J Lopez <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Again, if they were ignorant, on what basis do you call them "intelligent?"
>Maybe they seemed to be smart, but were missing Aces out of the deck, so
Ignorant does not equal "not intelligent". Intelligence makes it easier
to not be ignorant, but simply having intelligence does not endow a
person with knowledge of all things.
>The reason that I bring this up is that in TBC, after spending the whole book
>stating that IQ and intelligence are equivalent, H&M on pp. 408-9 decide
>that for Black children whose IQ was substantially raised, the
>equivalence was no longer true. Why? Because their performance did not
>increase along with their IQ. OK, I suppose, but then, which is
>it? IQ = intelligence or performance = intelligence
Humm. Misplaced my book. I'll have to get back to you on that one. But,
off hand, I would have to say that "equal" is too strong a relation
between intelligence and performance. One needs a certain level of
intelligence to master quantum mechanics. If you don't have it, no amount
of effort in the world is going to give you that mastery. However, having
intelligence is not going to ensure that you gain that mastery either.
Some effort is required.
>>I was a lazybutt myself who never
>>had to work until I got to grad school.
>So, is "hardworkingness" a part of intelligence?
>Let's not forget that "stupid" and "lazy" often go together.
An interesting stereotype. I have found many hard working people that
were not particularly bright. And many bright people that were lazy.
I'd have to say that stupid and lazy don't go together. Work smarter, not
>>>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
>>Issues of human potential is always an iffy question.
>I think they need to be answered before we decide that social
>policy changes will be effected based upon differences in potential.
Why? Right now we make social policy on the basis of irrational beliefs.
Steve La Joie