Why do some minorities think that

there ya go, spoilin' a perfectly good "poor oppressed white man" thread.by quoting fundamental American values and all.

 

here you go:


https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attract...9845-Reviews-Caucasian_Mountains-Yerevan.html

 

It is good at measuring several things but not intelligence. It measures problem solving skills, motivation, socialization, aquired skills such music and art recognition as well as spacial composition. People with Down's Syndrome score lower because they have little to no spacial recognition, limited socialization, limited motivation and limited problem solving skills.

 

So, do you think that people with mental disabilities score IQ's well below the median IQ for no reason at all?

 

Depends on the mental disability.

 

Sure. The intention is to disrupt society and that's just what's been going on for a couple of generations. So they pit groups of people against each other and we can see that going on every day. Hillary Clinton doesn't campaign to pull people together and, as we can see from the record of Barack Obama, he has only worked to separate people, not unite them.

 

How does one measure intelligence?

 

You folks on the right are sure going in for a good bit of projection.

 

You feel this is 'projection'? http://www.allenbwest.com/analytical-economist/everyone-black-lives-matter-needs-watch-now

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/06/clinton-chooses-black-lives-matter-over-law-enforcement-support/

 

There are more accurate tests out than the standard IQ. WISCV, K-ABC etc. etc. There are about a 50 different ones. All of them one thing in common, accuracy issues. Most of the post IQ tests are administered tests one on one with psychologist and/or teacher. So the results are dependent on the skill, bias and training of the administrator. They are now starting to do work with MRI's measuring neuron connectivity rates but those tests depend on our knowledge of how the brain works which is still more myth than science.

In short there are good ways at identifying cognitive disabilities such as dyslexia and autism but all intelligence testing has major flaws. So my take is we cannot properly measure intelligence. We can and should use what knowledge we do have to identify cognitive disabilities and ways to correct them.

 

So if there is no way to measure intelligence, how can you be so sure IQ tests are inaccurate? You have nothing to gauge them against.

IQ tests have been shown to correlate well with academic success. That is sufficient for me to say that that high IQ people are smart.

 

Rule number in science - correlation is not causation.

We know the IQ tests are inaccurate because they have been scientifically proven to be. Research has proven beyond any doubt that a financial inducement of between $1 - $10 causes a 10-20 point uptick in IQ scores. The higher financial inducement the higher the swing. They did not go above $10 but if trending held a $100 inducement could cause a 30-40 point swing in IQ score.

Again academic success is not necessarily related directly to intelligence. Being smart and being intelligent are not the same thing. They have proven that many great apes can learn and use sign language to communicate. That makes those great apes smart but it doesn't indicate whether or not they more intelligent than other species of ape or monkey.

They know from scientific studies that socialization can cause anywhere between a 5 - 20 point swing in IQ score.

Spacial relations plays a huge part in IQ tests. If you are not good at spacial relations it doesn't mean you are not intelligent. Removing spacial relation biases from IQ tests have produced a 5-20 swing in scores.

Again academic success or failure is not a measure of intelligence. Einstein was notoriously horrible at academic study. That didn't mean he wasn't intelligent.

 

Rule number one in science does not apply. If you make a ruler and measure things and find that the ruler correlates very well with the length of the object measured, you have a good ruler. IQ tests correlate well with academic and professional success. They are a good ruler for intelligence.

In re financial motivation: I say that is bs. I have never seen any result remotely similar to what you claim.

That is definitely bs. Koko doesn't know sign language.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...arch_criticism_of_working_conditions_and.html

And if you are both smart and good at spatial relations, you are really smart. Part of being smart is being able to visualize things and study them with the minds eye. It is certainly important in my field, mathematics and is obviously important for physicists. Perhaps it is not so important in language studies.

Academic success is a sign of high intelligence. That there are some notable exceptions do not invalidate the correlation. Einstein was also Jewish in a notoriously antisemitic country.

 

Probably because you never bothered to look. Next time you throw the BS flag make sure you cover your ass first so you don't look silly.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/04/what-does-iq-really-measure

It was not just Koko but many other studies. While they found that great apes cannot process complex language skills they can correctly interpret human language and can learn language enough to get what is they want from humans.

http://acp.eugraph.com/apes/

Again it would behoove you to do some proper research on a subject before throwing the BS flag.

That maybe your opinion but it is not shared widely in the scientific community. They have found that spatial recognition is controlled by many factors including socialization and hormonal differences as well as genetic and neurological reasons. In fact is widely believed, although not proven, that environmental and hormonal differences play a leading role. Other studies dismiss entirely the connection between spatial recognition and intelligence and suggest that working memory (i.e. short term memory) is much more important to executive high functions than is spatial recognition.

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1979-32746-001
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2001-05320-003

Again correlation is not causation. Einstein was not unsuccessful at school because of anti-antisemitism. He was bad at school because it bored him. Academic success or failure is very closely connected to motivation. If you are highly motivated you can succeed in academics unless you have a cognitive impairment. It just matters how motivated you are.

 

nearly 2,000 miles

But not "white" enough for you, right?

That you're not very well informed about the issues you're attempting to discuss. Thought that was pretty clear.

A strange question. For one, we would need to define what "American values" actually are. I don't think that a person or race represents "American values". A person could demonstrate that they hold values that we think of as American.

Are you suggesting that a black person is incapable of doing so?

Because you think that "whites" represent "American values"

A white supremacist who doesn't think that non-whites are inferior is an oxymoron.

Unresponsive. Define what it means to be "white". Tell us which genetic markers make a person "white".

 

(emphasis added)

So someone's race is determined by your perception of them as being "white", "black", or something else?

Doesn't matter if their physical appearance masks their heritage? (mixed race people who can pass for "white")

Doesn't matter if you mistake their heritage based on appearances (see my earlier example of my great-grandfather being called "the n-word" even though his heritage is Native American, rather than African American. A further example, my sister-in-law, who is Native Hawaiian, is often mistaken for being "black".)

If race isn't a scientific fact, than I question how you can say it is "real". The eyes can be fooled. A person's reasoning can be clouded by prejudice.

Perception is not itself reality. It is only one's subjective interpretation of reality.

 

Duckworth's theories have not made much of an impression on the literature. Perhaps they are unreproducible. [/quote]

Well, that is not very impressive. Dogs and the like can be trained to bark and stuff to get what they want. It is called operant conditioning.

Not just my opinion, but others too, who think IQ tests should test spatial recognition more intensely.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/recognizing-spatial-intel/

Spacial Intelligence is right brain, other stuff is left brain. Surely you want to consider both hemispheres to judge somebody's intelligence.

All this gathering of crap to throw at IQ tests just doesn't stick. IQ tests have been used successfully for many decades to discover innate intelligence.

As it turns out, Einstein actually did very well in school, except for French.
[quote CONTRARY to a popular legend that has given comfort to countless slow starters, young Albert Einstein was remarkably gifted in mathematics, algebra and physics, academic records recently acquired from Swiss archives show.

The records, contained in a collection of the great theorist's papers now being prepared for publication at Princeton, confirm that Einstein was a child prodigy, conversant in college physics before he was 11 years old, a ''brilliant'' violin player who got high marks in Latin and Greek. But his inability to master French was the bane of his school days, and may have been chiefly responsible for his failing college entrance examinations. [/quote]

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/14/science/einstein-revealed-as-brilliant-in-youth.html

It is no surprise that highly motivated students do better, on average, than less motivated ones. But highly motivated high IQ students are going to do better than highly motivated low IQ students.

Intelligence is a real thing, and IQ tests do measure intelligence.

 

Translation: Damn the science. Full speed ahead on BS beliefs.

A dog cannot ask for an orange or for a banana and know the difference. It is not conditioning.

Then the IQ test will be even less accurate.

Ye olde right brain left brain myth ehhh. Right up there with the IQ test myth.

http://www.livescience.com/39373-left-brain-right-brain-myth.html

Left brain right brain has been exposed as myth. It is funny though in the article you even cite it is suggested that the IQ test is an inaccurate test of intelligence.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/14/science/einstein-revealed-as-brilliant-in-youth.html[/QUOTE]

Here is his report card;

5 A's, 4 B's, 3 C's and 1 D. Like I said Einstein Academic accomplishments were limited. Not because he wasn't intelligent but because certain things bored him. He was considered a pariah among colleagues and wasn't even offered any teaching positions until he blew the lid off of the world of physics.

I never said intelligence wasn't a real thing. IQ tests are just not and accurate measure of it as almost all of science now agrees.

 

Well now we are getting somewhere. IQ tests do in fact measure intelligence. Now you are quibbling about its accuracy.

I sincerely doubt that all of science agrees, though. Most of science does not address the subject at all. I even doubt that all psychometricians agree, or even a majority.

You just focus on a handful of dissenters out to foist a politically correct opinion on society.

You fell for it.

 

So IQ testing incompletely measures intelligence rather than not measuring intelligence at all?

Regardless, IQ is correlated with life achievement, and populations with higher IQ perform better than those with lower.

 

If a test is inaccurate it is not viable and doesn't measure anything substantive. My position has not changed from the beginning. The IQ test is NOT a measure of intelligence. That is because it is inaccurate in its design, administration and scoring.

The proof is in the pudding. Schools, colleges and universities no longer use the IQ test to measure potential students. They now rely on psychometric testing, Elementary Cognitive Testing, K-ABC testing and the like. The IQ test is passe. It is no longer used in anything that could be considered wide circulation and instead schools have adapted to more accurate tests as above with the knowledge that even these tests have their limitations.

 

Again that is assuming facts not in evidence. There are many a successful that scored low on IQ tests. Including Nobel Prize winning scientists and Ronald Reagan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/29/boris-johnson-130-iq-test_n_4359295.html

 

Have fun trying to prove that. What you will find is European immigrants maximized our potential, Chinese immigrants helped with the railroads but receded into their own communities without making a fuss. Immigrants from other places have had really no positive impact on America for most of its history...

 

On a macro level IQ is predictive and correlates with life achievement.

Any cognitive test worth its grain in salt is valuable for its predictive ability, and all cognitive testing shows racial performance differences.

 

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.