Re: IQ AND RACE? HUH?
J Lopez (jlopez@panix.com)
6 Feb 1995 07:19:57 -0500
In <D3KC48.n43@eskimo.com> lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) writes:
>In article <3h2nip$s3b@panix.com>, J Lopez <jlopez@panix.com> 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
>>to speak.
>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.
I'm still wondering on what basis you called those fools intelligent...
>>So, is "hardworkingness" a part of intelligence?
>No.
You sound awfully sure of that. I think it is.
>>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.
Intelligence is "problem solving ability," more or less. Correctamundo?
How are you able to solve a problem if you're unable to divert any effort
towards it? You know that other old aphorism about genius--?
>I'd have to say that stupid and lazy don't go together. Work smarter, not
>harder.
That has nothing to do with laziness. Laziness is a disinclination to work.
The "harder" in that old chestnut involves working hard, not because one is
inclined to, but because one doesn't know any better. I'd say MOST lazy
people wind up working harder at what they actually need to accomplish
than they would have done if they had worked "smarter" in the first place.
Look at yourself in grad school. I'll bet you had to work twice as hard
to "catch up" to the people who already had learned good study habits in
undergrad.
>>>>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.
>>
>>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.
You sound remarkably like those people who said, "Affirmative action is
good social policy. After all we've already been discriminating on the
basis of race all this time."
>--
>--
>Steve La Joie
>lajoie@eskimo.com
--
jlopez :: "How the hell can you write an essay on E. M. Forster with almost
total reference to Harold Robbins?" --Willy Russell
|