Re: IQ AND RACE? HUH?

Ian T Brown (ibrown@willamette.edu)
3 Feb 1995 13:58:30 -0800

In article <3grtrn$nun@clarknet.clark.net>,
Lord Zilch)@clark.net ( <thedavid> wrote:
>William Wilson (wswilso1@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <3grir6$4cj@clarknet.clark.net> thedavid (Lord Zilch)@clark.net ()
>: writes:
>
>[Bunch of my snipped; if you're smart you've saved it! ;) ]
>
>I opined:
>: >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.
>: >
>
>You replied:
>: 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.
>
Either you missed something, or I'm seeing something that's not there.
You said statistics are lies. He said IQ tests are based on statistics,
so if statistics are lies, then IQ tests are inherently faulty. Your
answer doesn't adress his point. The question is: are statistics (and
therefore IQ tests) unreliable, or not?

>[more snippin']
>
>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. 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.
>
OK, explain this to me. If, say, Asians consistantly score higher than,
say, whites, and Asians have average higher scores, why is it illogical
to say there is a CORRELATION? I can see that the numbers are
statistically not very significant and don't show CAUSATION, but when A
accompanies B, I always thought that was called a correlation.

[David explaining that he's taken IQ tests many times and he's really
smart, but the only reason he does anymore is to pick up on "SMART" babes
with nice boobs.]
>:
>: (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.)
>
>AH. I ain't perfect either: once again I had to see if there's an "e"
>at the end of "develop." Of course there isn't. So silly...
>
I don't know what my IQ is, so I can't comment.

>Now, will the NEXT nazi goliath come front-&-center? My SO is busy tonight.
>
Jakala, you're up!!!

-- 

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to have a mind is being 

very wasteful." -- Dan Quayle



"Book 'em, Dannoe." -- Jack Lord