Guest Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1572949 People living in depressing circumstances like war and poverty are very likely to score lower on an IQ test than someone in positive circumstances. With ongoing drought, wars, famine and disease outbreaks it is not unsurprising that testees might not give a **** about answering the silly, unimportant questions posed to them. Cultural bias also thwarts the effectiveness of IQ tests.
JDL Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 I'm not so sure. There are many more chimps, so there is a lot more research. To study them in their habitat requires extensive travel to remote locations, and to study them in a lab requires expensive housing for them. There are no Neandertals these days, so one needed house them, and to study them in their habitat requires digging in the backyards of civilization where Eurasian universities are located. Analyzing the chimp genome costs the same as analyzing the Neandertal genome -- maybe more, because chimp DNA is easier to obtain, so more analyses are done. It may require some research into actual expenditures on the two fields of research. Sadly, I'm not so committed to my position to look into it myself.
Guest Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Science is only as infallible as the human conducting it Soundly stated. The scientific method itself is solid (albeit limited in scope), but many practitioners are flawed by, for example, being dishonest, by conducting poorly designed experiments, or refusing to consider all available information.
JDL Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Back to IQ. The test may accurately reflect how successful someone from one region may be when transferred into another region and lifestyle. The biggest disparity in average per region will require the most adjustment. Those with higher IQ's will be the ones to adapt most rapidly. Take an average yuppie and drop him on a desert island with a Bushman and the Bushman will be more likely to survive by solving those problems necessary to allow survival.
Guest Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 To be fair the Bushman probably already knows the solutions to the problems likely to show up. However, would the Yuppie be able to learn from the Bushman? I've worked with many people from around the world and can safely say that Africans are perfectly capable of learning to solve American problems when they are taught what those problems mean. Many Americans on the other hand leave me dismally hoping I'm wrong about their abilities to learn.
Yuchi1 Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Soundly stated. The scientific method itself is solid (albeit limited in scope), but many practitioners are flawed by, for example, being dishonest, by conducting poorly designed experiments, or refusing to consider all available information. Precisely!
salubrious Posted May 28, 2014 Moderator Posted May 28, 2014 Moderator Statement: There have been several posts that we have had to remove that have violated forum rules. They have been Racial/ethic slurs and are not tolerated here (see quote from the forum rules you all agreed to below). This has gone on long enough and it stops now. So here is how this is going to play out. If we see any further posts on the topic of racial intelligence, they will be removed and the poster will be issued 2 warning points, one for anti-social behavior and the other for failing to follow a staff directive. BFF Forum Rules:1. Respect For OthersA. All members of these Forums will respect the opinions and presence of other members of the Forums. You are welcome to engage in challenging and spirited debate with other users, but rudeness will not be tolerated. Name-calling, disrespecting other users or throwing personal insults against them will not be tolerated. Flaming another user because of their spelling or word choice will not be tolerated. Personal attacks of any kind are not allowed. Racial/Ethnic or sexist slurs will not be tolerated. Antisocial behavior, in general, will not be tolerated.
JDL Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 To be fair the Bushman probably already knows the solutions to the problems likely to show up. However, would the Yuppie be able to learn from the Bushman? I've worked with many people from around the world and can safely say that Africans are perfectly capable of learning to solve American problems when they are taught what those problems mean. Many Americans on the other hand leave me dismally hoping I'm wrong about their abilities to learn. When I was leading troops, teaching junior officers and cadets, and today when I hire, I was more interested in adaptability and trainability, than education. There are plenty of professional students, but the person you can train and cross-train into what you need and who then surpasses into becoming indispensible by anticipating what will be needed is pure gold.
Guest Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Agreed. I often found myself cringing when seeing many of my fellow Americans coming up next in the roster. Not to say we're all bad but the cluelessness of so many was really dispiriting. I try to accept people as they are but sometimes that's hard.
Guest Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) An IQ test can be biased. But not all IQ tests are biased. For example: http://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idRegTest=3107. I believe culturally unbiased tests are used in the comparisons across nations. I once took one that asked "Which of these foods is not a meat?" The answer they were looking for was fish, which to me was the flesh of an animal, therefore meat. So this test was biased toward those whose beliefs included the perception that fish is not meat. I'd like to see the entire question and answer options. If the oprions were, for example, beef, lamb, pork, and veal, then fish was a culturally unbiased (setting language aside) correct answer. I will admit, however, that fish is meat, but multiple choice IQ tests are looking for the best answer. I suspect, looking at the IQ map, that the test is skewed toward those living in a technological society. What sets Homo sapiens apart from all other extant species is our prolific use of technology. Problem solving is the key factor. If the test were skewed toward prospering in a more hostile environment requiring more self-sufficiency, then I suspect the map would look somewhat different. Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, and problem solving. There are many strong positive correlations amongst the various aspects of intelligence pointed out by Wikipedia. For example, how does one problem solve without logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, learning, memory, and planning? The test is not apples to apples regardless of region. Not if the test is culturally unbiased and appropriately administered. Edited May 28, 2014 by Pteronarcyd
Guest Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 When I was leading troops, teaching junior officers and cadets, and today when I hire, I was more interested in adaptability and trainability, than education. That's because adaptabiliy and trainability are elements highly and positively correlated with intelligence, whereas education, the way our society now conducts it, is less positively correlated with intelligence. An extreme example, our special education system generates educated graduates, but none that todays US Army would accept, so you, as an officer, never got the opportunity to lead and teach such folks. In fact, I do believe the US military strictly screens volunteers on the basis of intelligence, directly or indirectly, such that you had a rather elite population to deal with. Another example, society today pushes far more people into college that are nowhere near qualified to be there. The result? College costs increase as they must offer staff to try to keep the unqualified enrolled, many of the unqualified drop out, after making substantial unwise expenditures, and the value of a degree is diminished, because degrees not truly and honestly earned are now being granted.
Guest Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 You'd prefer science kept its old beliefs and theories that "brontosaurus" spent its time lumbering in swamps to support its great bulk, and T-Rex walked about completely upright, dragging its tail on the ground? yep
Guest Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Plussed that imediately for truth Booger! But also do recognize that new evidence will always change the picture a bit while never changing the bones themselves. True. But even watching the History or Discovery Channel with what is shown as "current" shows, or those of the last few years, It is still confusing to me. I have to check the original airdate to see if one scientist really heartfelt and evidence based opinion is the latest really heartfelt and evidence based opinion. And medicine same way, salt is ok this week, or bad? Is red wine good this week or neutral, or bad? I'm not being totally facetious, it really is confusing to someone without a background to filter who is hot and who is cool. And everyone of the really heartfelt and evidence based scientists have the opposing scientists who disagree with them. I liked the Flintstones, Thanks for the Plus!
southernyahoo Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 You'd prefer science kept its old beliefs and theories that "brontosaurus" spent its time lumbering in swamps to support its great bulk, and T-Rex walked about completely upright, dragging its tail on the ground? yep I agree there too, If they're doing a complete 180 every so often, it only shows their information can't be trusted. 1
Recommended Posts