Nobel Prize scientist - Black people are dumb

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, what most people don't know is that intelligence tests are not generalizable across cultures, what they might know is that the term intelligence is hotly debated, and is not strictly defined - so when a renowned scientist goes out and says something like this, then its pure junk - nothing else.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...ligence_factor

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, what most people don't know is that intelligence tests are not generalizable across cultures, what they might know is that the term intelligence is hotly debated, and is not strictly defined - so when a renowned scientist goes out and says something like this, then its pure junk - nothing else.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...ligence_factor

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the general intelligence factor which you linked to with that article is indeed hotly debated and many claim it is plain out false, whereas others say it is simply irrelevant.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the general intelligence factor which you linked to with that article is indeed hotly debated and many claim it is plain out false, whereas others say it is simply irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably you will be able to point me to some arguments from these "many" or "others". Arguments specifically dealing with reasonably up-to-date g theory - for instance, Jensen's 1998 article on g.

[tame_deuces]

Gardner's works are what first and foremost comes to mind.

Alot of the experiments done on Vygotsky's social intelligence comes to mind, which shows that the arena for use of some forms of logic change from culture to culture. Amongst others it was shown how street children of brazil could not perform math on paper, but performed maths very well when set in the cultural context of trade ( think that was a study by Nunes). Looking for articles on social learning, social construction would probably reveal alot.

The above can be set in light by the old riddle - if you do something, and somebody trains a machine to do it better, does this mean you are more stupid than the machine? What if this something is an intelligence test?

And that is not a bad question, especially when you consider that you can train yourself to do well on intelligence tests. Are you then becoming more intelligent or are you getting better at the tests?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, what most people don't know is that intelligence tests are not generalizable across cultures, what they might know is that the term intelligence is hotly debated, and is not strictly defined - so when a renowned scientist goes out and says something like this, then its pure junk - nothing else.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...ligence_factor

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the general intelligence factor which you linked to with that article is indeed hotly debated and many claim it is plain out false, whereas others say it is simply irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are badly misstating the general opinion of psychologists IMO. I did some serious reading on this topic and even the American Psychological Association has stated that IQ tests measure g quite accurately, and the differences between cultural groups can not be attributed to cultural biases (between all of their apologetics, of course)

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

You are badly misstating the general opinion of psychologists IMO. I did some serious reading on this topic and even the American Psychological Association has stated that IQ tests measure g quite accurately, and the differences between cultural groups can not be attributed to cultural biases (between all of their apologetics, of course)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty meaningless though. Even if IQ tests measure g quite accurately, what is g a measure of? That is where the debate lies. I hate it when people appeal to authority, but I must admit that I'm currently in a Psychology PhD program right now and I would like to think that I have a slightly better handle on the general opinion of most research psychologists considering that I talk to them and read their research every day.

Would you mind linking me to where you read the APA statement that you are referring to?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

You are badly misstating the general opinion of psychologists IMO. I did some serious reading on this topic and even the American Psychological Association has stated that IQ tests measure g quite accurately, and the differences between cultural groups can not be attributed to cultural biases (between all of their apologetics, of course)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ofcourse it measures G accurately, but it's the validity of G that is the centre of the debate - not the tests.

And trust me, that is a common discussion in psychology - 'ok we measured it, but what did we just measure?', and its an important one.

[andyfox]

As David has frequently pointed out, an intelligent guy says something, all things being equal, we should give it more credence than when a guy not as intelligent says it. But this guy is a bigot. Nothing he says about race should be taken without a shovelful of salt.

[Subfallen]

Jews are much, much better at physics than are Gentiles.

[Lestat]

First, can't this easily be verified or proven wrong through testing?

Secondly, does it even matter if it's true? Can or should something like that ever be said? And we think religion is a touchy topic?...

I've often wondered whether certain races were either slightly ahead or behind other races on an evolutionary scale. I'm white, and it wouldn't surprise me (or offend me), to learn that Asians are more intelligent than people of my race.

I mean, the guy makes a point... There's no reason to think that all races evolved equally at the same pace over time.