Re: IQ AND RACE? HUH?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: TimAmmons: "Re: Evolution Conclusively Disproved"
• Previous message: ifjed@nmsua.nmsu.edu: "Re: evolution / creation debates and netiquette"
• Maybe in reply to: Lord Zilch: "IQ AND RACE? HUH?"
• Next in thread: Stephen Lajoie: "Re: IQ AND RACE? HUH?"

J Lopez (jlopez@panix.com) wrote:
:.. 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?

Could it mean that working at McDonald's might take more "smarts"
than we think? :)

And to take "the opposition's position" a wee bit further, perhaps we
need another definition of "success," or another criterion entirely.
My proposal: "Free people do what they WANT to do, and smart free people
get away with it!"

David

• Next message: TimAmmons: "Re: Evolution Conclusively Disproved"
• Previous message: ifjed@nmsua.nmsu.edu: "Re: evolution / creation debates and netiquette"
• Maybe in reply to: Lord Zilch: "IQ AND RACE? HUH?"
• Next in thread: Stephen Lajoie: "Re: IQ AND RACE? HUH?"