Re: IQ AND RACE? HUH?
William Wilson (email@example.com)
2 Feb 1995 22:05:56 GMT
In <firstname.lastname@example.org> thedavid (Lord Zilch)@clark.net ()
>I consistently test out as of "above-average" IQ: the lowest score
>was 137. MUST one do a protracted investigation into the supposed
>eugenic "reasons" for this? It'd be far simpler to note that
>I was a small frail boy who sat inside reading while my sturdier
>contemporaries (in that neighborhood White and Jewish!) were busy
>playing football (and looking to beat me up).
>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?
>If you're out to prove you're (relatively?) "not too bright" please
>consider you've done so quite conclusively. Now shut the hell up!
(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!?)
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.
-Wm. S. Wilson
(P.S. don't feel bad, I still say you're smarter than me. I had to look
up the word "fatuity." How fatuous of me.)