Re: No Genius Left Behind

"R. Steve Walz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > well...Niels Bohr would be fairly right-brained. At least compared to
> > > > > > > > Einstein. What about Erwin Schrodinger? Yet subatomic particles still
> > > > > > > > exist, and they still behave so unpredictably.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > An interesting thing ignored by Yerkes's tests in the Army: Northern
> > > > > > > > blacks beat Southern whites.
> > > > > > > ------------
> > > > > > > Now why don't I doubt that??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But it's nice to throw makemyday's whole perspective out of whack.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Naturally, it was one of the few sections ignored entirely by the majority.
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > Hahahahah!
> > > >
> > > > Remember, Steve, this was the era of eugenics. Essentially, any trait
> > > > not putting whites and specifically Germanic speakers on top was
> > > > thrown out or explained away. In fact, it was only within the last
> > > > couple decades that Orientals were given top position on IQ by
> > > > biological determinists, and only then because Japan and South Korea
> > > > are hard to ignore.
> > > -----------------------
> > > I would have nothing against Asians being smarter, if true. Their
> > > cultures are more perceptive and more peaceful, but it simply isn't
> > > true!
> > 
> > Well, it's based on three important ideas:
> > 
> > 1) Intelligence is hereditary.
> -----------------
> It isn't, it is learned at home, which makes it seem so, no more.

I know that.

> > 2) IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence.
> ------------------
> Nonsense, but it is one KIND of measure.

And I know that too.

> > 3) Northern Europe selected more for intelligence than _insert
> > appropriate other environment_.
> ---------------------
> That might be valid, but is the time-frame sufficient? We don't know.

It isn't. In the animal kingdom, K-selection correlates with
intelligence. Logically enough, diabetes correlates with K-selection.
Northern Europeans have the lowest rate of diabetes.

> > IF Japanese and Koreans have lower IQs THEN NOT 2
> -----------------------
> They don't, in fact the single most startling thing about the whole
> issue of IQ is that it IS so close to being a human universal!! Each
> major population on earth has an IQ as a whole that is within a scant
> few percent, and those "errors" can be dismissed methodologically and
> culturally by statisticians.

What I MEANT, Steve, is that they chose it in order to save 2. (Until
the 80s, the universal white-racist line was that Japanese and Koreans
had a mean IQ of 90.) Essentially, eugenists make up these IQ stats as
they go.

> > Therefore, the only logical thing to do admit that Japanese and
> > Koreans have higher IQs. But they never mention North Koreans or
> > Koreans living in Japan; both have much lower IQs than South Koreans
> > or Japanese. After all, then they'll either have to admit variation
> > within members of the same race (and thus by extension NOT 3) or say
> > NOT 1.
> ------------------------
> Their difference is a scant few percent, it is often cited, but it is
> statistically insignificant and NOT beyond the inherent error of the
> tests!

30 points between North Koreans and South Koreans is not beyond the
inherent error? O-kay...

> > > > Another thing you'll notice is, variation within members of the same
> > > > race is largely ignored by biological determinists: The reason is
> > > > given by Phillippe Rushton himself; it 'obfuscates heirarchal order'.
> > > > (Read: He can't get the results he wants unless he fudges his
> > > > numbers.)
> > > ------------------
> > > Indeed!
> > 
> > A lot of early biological determinists committed the same error
> > subconsciously; it's so nice of Phillippe to put his bias on the table
> > for us. A variant is to special plead away traits that might go
> > against whites. Or even use metaphysical arguments. (No, I'm not
> > thinking of the various 'spiritual' arguments of Nazi ideology.
> > Charles Spearman argued that g was innate. When no one found a
> > chemical or brain tissue responsible for g, Spearman resorted to
> > vitalism.)
> -------------------------
> People have abandoned the mathematical science on this, and ignored
> the simple facts about the numbers they gathered. There aren't enough
> differences between human groups to argue about, and nobody has set
> about subtracting out the variables of culture.

The fallacy is called reification: They took an immaterial thing (IQ)
and convinced themselves there was some gene for IQ and IQ alone.

Spearman eventually recanted, but his heirs, such as Jensen, still
insist on this g factor.