NY Times: IQ is Genetic

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I.Q. scores and measuring intelligence have long been controversial. Brain-imaging studies by Dr. Thompson and the study group have advanced the field by identifying physical features of the brain that correlate with I.Q.
In 2001, Dr. Thompson reported that based on imaging twins' brains the volume of gray matter in the frontal lobes and other areas correlated with I.Q. and was heavily influenced by genetics.



"The I.Q. was tested when the children entered the program. Further tests were not needed because I.Q.'s are so stable, Dr. Rapoport said."

Class society cannot be abolished and our schools cannot be fixed until we acknowledge basic facts of biology and take them into account when designing educational programs or how social classes are formed.

Low IQ is a strong predictor of poverty. High IQ is only a weak predictor of economic success. The reason we have poverty isn't because of capitalist exploitation, but rather because of inherent biological differences; something that the leftists fail to recognize and acknowledge as truth.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Like typical righties, you always go off the mark when addressing "class" issues, always raising that red herring of the rich-poor divide. :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

So those who are starving in Africa are starving because they are stupid?

[GPDP]

Did you know that malnutrition, a bad diet, and poorly treated water can lead to degradation in mental development?

[black magick hustla]

So you are a social darwinist.

:shrugs: Richard Feyman had an IQ of 124. That is pretty low because the iq of a genius is atleast 140. He was certainly smarter than you and any other joker who claims that visualizing all sides of a cube is a mark of intelligence. he was miles ahead half of the chumps who get above 160 in these tests

[#FF0000]

Did you know that malnutrition, a bad diet, and poorly treated water can lead to degradation in mental development?

You mean to say that environment plays a role in our development? You don't say!

IQ is not entirely genetic. It changes over the years and can change as a result of environmental conditions. Like everything else about humans.

[JimmyJazz]

Did you know that malnutrition, a bad diet, and poorly treated water can lead to degradation in mental development?

Dude, this is true, but it is so not necessary to even go here. The idea that IQ testing measures mainly intelligence is completely fraudulent.

[synthesis]

This is absurd. If you want to prove that "intelligence" - a poorly defined, arbitrary construct - is genetic, you have to actually determine the genes which delineate "intelligence".

Also, "intelligence" as measured by IQ and "intelligence" as is necessary to achieve "success" in any society are very obviously two different things. IQ cannot account for the ability to adapt to unique circumstances in unique ways.


Low IQ is a strong predictor of poverty.

I don't have the desire to drag out these statistics - which are probably wrong - but for your later assertions to be correct, the reverse would have to be true - i.e., poverty is a predictor of low IQ. Can you prove this?

Personally, I have seen far too many stupid people from rich families "succeed" while intelligent people I know wind up living on the streets to ever believe that poverty is anything other than a product of circumstances.

[GPDP]

Perhaps you are correct. I should not bother pursuing the argument over IQ. Nevertheless, I will stand by the following maxim: in general, it is the abject conditions inherent to poverty that makes people "stupid", not the stupidity of people that makes them poor.

[JimmyJazz]

You're right. And fyi, I don't downplay the importance of the environment, nor do I believe that there are no real intelligence differences between rich and poor. But lots of people do downplay or completely discount the environment, and I'm rarely in a mood to get into that debate if I can prove my point more simply.

If anyone is interested in the effect of the environment on intelligence, go to scholar.google.com and search "rats intelligence enriched environment".

[Socialist18]

Personally, I have seen far too many stupid people from rich families "succeed" while intelligent people I know wind up living on the streets to ever believe that poverty is anything other than a product of circumstances.
Same, some of the smartest people I've ever met have been poor and homeless. And I've certainly met my fair share of stupid rich people.

[the questionist]

Class society cannot be abolished and our schools cannot be fixed until we acknowledge basic facts of biology and take them into account when designing educational programs or how social classes are formed.

Low IQ is a strong predictor of poverty. High IQ is only a weak predictor of economic success. The reason we have poverty isn't because of capitalist exploitation, but rather because of inherent biological differences; something that the leftists fail to recognize and acknowledge as truth.


This isn't scientific, where is the peer review?

Every human being, unless by particular defect in individual cases, is born with cognitive faculties. From this fact , there is no smarter newborn.

I would question the validity of 'class' mentality and ask compared to what?

But even if some people were biologically smarter than others , in other words , it was genetic, then how could the smarter people possibly be angry with the dumber? If its genetic, then the dumber can't be blamed for their condition. If anything, the smarter rational people would have nothing but compassion for the dumber. Do you get angry at a 3 year old for not being able to do calculus?

I don't think thats the case though. I think its the fact that places like Africa are run by witch doctors and brutes. The people born into those societies have guns pointed at them already. The incentive to excel is severely limited and even punished. Basically, they aren't poor because they are inferior , they are poor because theres fucking guns pointed at them.

[Sendo]

When the IQ test was invented people got scores in the 50s.

The inventor himself said it should never be used to judge how smart people are.

IQ tests measure your ability to take IQ tests. That's all they prove.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Wait; even if we accept this shitty premise as true, what does it prove? That you're no better than a Nazi? Fascists argued the exact same thing: that people had their "natural" place. If they strayed too far up the social pyramid the system gets ruined.

If this premise is true, which I doubt considering welfare states have been the most successful economic system thus far, you are advocating discrimination against people who are less fortunate. If I'm not as nimble as the average person, but I try my hardest in life, why do I deserve less?

[Demogorgon]

I never hold much to IQ tests. There are so many factors involved, cultural bias is a well known example for instance and also on the individual level, the simple mood of the person being tested will have a strong impact. They simply are not precise to draw any meaningful conclusions from.
So you are a social darwinist.

:shrugs: Richard Feyman had an IQ of 124. That is pretty low because the iq of a genius is atleast 140. He was certainly smarter than you and any other joker who claims that visualizing all sides of a cube is a mark of intelligence. he was miles ahead half of the chumps who get above 160 in these tests
Certainly people who do internet tests and get over 160 and believe it are idiots.

IQ isn't about a score in a test. It is about placing a person on a standardised scale based on the results of the test. Different types of IQ test use a different range, so different scores aren't actually comparable anyway unless everyone took the same test. I believe the most common type standardises the scores to between 55 and 145, however above 135 it doesn't really mean anything anyway as they lack sufficiently hard questions to discriminate above that level.

Also sometimes you see results that plain common sense tells you is wrong. When myself and my brother were being tested for various autistic tendencies our IQs were measured and I came out nearly 40 points ahead. Now that is utter nonsense. Plainly I do have the edge on my brother in such things, but forty points of difference? Not a chance.

[Rascolnikova]

good old eugenics.

I find it more likely that poverty is a predictor of low IQ--that is to say, the test is designed in such a way that it measures cultural indicators associated with socio-economic class as though they were measures of intelligence.

I found A Framework for Understanding Poverty, by Ruby K. Payne, very helpful. It clearly and concisely explains the ways poverty can appear to be stupidity but is not. That is not it's goal, but an understanding of class cultures explains much of what The Bell Curve, by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, which famously made the argument you parrot, fails to say.


*sorry for the amazon links, it was the only source with a look-inside option.

[Ratatosk]

It's simply retarded to claim that since there are always going to be smarter and less smart people, there will always be some special class that owns the means of production. How the OP managed to jump from one to the other (without any argument in between) is a complete mystery to me.

It's true that I.Q. tests don't necessarily measure intelligence, but since intelligence is quite likely to be to some extent hereditary, too, I don't see that objection as fundamental.

The argument is kinda like if someone in the Middle Ages said that being good at sword-fighting makes you successful and being good at sword-fighting is partly hereditary, therefore, there will always be classes. I mean, wtf. Sure, low I.Q. may (or may not) in capitalism be a predictor of poverty. How on Earth does anything about any other system follow from this?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

This isn't scientific, where is the peer review?

Every human being, unless by particular defect in individual cases, is born with cognitive faculties. From this fact , there is no smarter newborn.




Capitalist lawyer is right, you extreme lefties fail to realize that people are born different from one another therefore people are not equal to each other. And that is why a system that tries and make everything equal (fail) will not work out. Or maybe you are in denial.

People are born different and the differences just aren't skin deep and appearance. If we inherit some of our parents personality why isn't it possible that we also inherit their stupidity or their intellectual capability?




I would question the validity of 'class' mentality and ask compared to what?

But even if some people were biologically smarter than others , in other words , it was genetic, then how could the smarter people possibly be angry with the dumber? If its genetic, then the dumber can't be blamed for their condition. If anything, the smarter rational people would have nothing but compassion for the dumber. Do you get angry at a 3 year old for not being able to do calculus?

I don't think thats the case though. I think its the fact that places like Africa are run by witch doctors and brutes. The people born into those societies have guns pointed at them already. The incentive to excel is severely limited and even punished. Basically, they aren't poor because they are inferior , they are poor because theres fucking guns pointed at them.


I think it is far better to frown upon stupid behavior then reward stupidity with compassion and pity. Of course every case is different.

Why shouldn't we get angry with a stupid 30 year old not being able to act civilized?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Same, some of the smartest people I've ever met have been poor and homeless. And I've certainly met my fair share of stupid rich people.

i guess smart people can be lazy and stupid people can be ambitious.

Just comes to show that even a stupid person can become rich.

[Bud Struggle]

Low IQ is a strong predictor of poverty. High IQ is only a weak predictor of economic success. The reason we have poverty isn't because of capitalist exploitation, but rather because of inherent biological differences; something that the leftists fail to recognize and acknowledge as truth.

Weeeeeeeelllllllll, maybe.

First of all--there probably is some genetic component to IQ just as there is a genetic component to how tall you are going to be or what your hair color is. I think one could make a rational case for that.

But when it comes to how much moeny you are going t make--I think intelligence helps, but it's one of a number of factors. Dumb luck made more millionaires than anything else in the history of mankind. And a good subset of "lucky" is being born to a rich daddy!

Also, not always but in most cases--personality is more important than intelligence. Capitalism is all about "sales".

And the other thing that is pretty important is hard work. Really great ideas thought up by really bright people aren't that hard to come by--the work capacity to make a lot of money from them is rather rare.

So anyway, I see some connection between wealth and IQ--but it's not everything by any means.

[Jazzratt]

lol, the NY Times. What reputable journal will we find Dr. Thompson's actual study? Or is it a case of journo-science :lol:

[EvigLidelse]

Hahaha, what is this crap?

You think it's 100% genetic? There are far more contributors than that, the surroundings is probably a bigger contributor.

[Raúl Duke]

In my AP psychology class we covered intelligence...

Basically, while genes may play a factor...
The strongest factors for intelligence are environmental/social.

Even then we also covered how difficult it is to test for intelligence because we are unable to come with a universal definition (there's like 3 theories of intelligence, maybe more) and also there are cultural biases on intelligence tests.

Seriously, when it comes to science, you can't really believe everything a popular magazine (much less a general one) says. Most likely this article has a pro-evolutionary psychologist bent and fails to address the controversy and valid criticism the evo psychologists face from other psychologists. (plus other stuff like the "intelligence definition debate"). Also, the study doesn't seem to address what happened after the initial brain scan. Did they place the twins into 2 different environments and they still both had similar IQ levels at the age of 10, 15, and 20 (etc)? (Because you need to do this to validate that hypothesis).

Even those with a focus on a field, like psychology today, sometimes leaves stuff out that should be placed as a warning.
For example, there was an article on "politically incorrect truths" or something like that but basically all the arguments for what they were stating came from one field of psychology (evolutionary psychology) and the article failed to mention how these ideas are even criticize by other psychologists (or failed to take into account how these issues are viewed by the other fields of psychology such as social psychology).

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Dr. Segal has found that identical twins were the most alike in their thinking, fraternal twins somewhat less so, and virtual twins strikingly different. When it comes to intelligence, for example, her research has found that only 25 percent of the differences between twins — virtual, fraternal or identical — can be accounted for by their environment, 75 percent by genetics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/garden/04twins.html?_r=1&oref=slogin



But when it comes to how much moeny you are going t make--I think intelligence helps, but it's one of a number of factors. Dumb luck made more millionaires than anything else in the history of mankind. And a good subset of "lucky" is being born to a rich daddy!

This comment belongs in the "DUHHHH" category.



Same, some of the smartest people I've ever met have been poor and homeless. And I've certainly met my fair share of stupid rich people.

Don't forget about middle-class people. I certainly have never met a stupid engineer or a CPA. The world isn't just divided into Paris Hilton and George Orwell's Narrator in "Down and Out in Paris and London".

And here's a good post to explain why intelligence and IQ is weakly correlated with how much money one earns.



IQ AND CAREER TRACKS


I previously blogged about how IQ has little or even sometimes a negative correlation with income (http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/07/higher_intellig.html) after highest level of education is accounted for. The tracks theory explains why IQ is of so little importance. Once a person gets onboard a track, he just follows the track regardless of his IQ.
Take for example my high school English teacher, Frank McCourt (http://www.halfsigma.com/2005/11/teacher_man_cha.html). Even though he scored in the 99th percentile on the verbal section of the GRE, he probably got paid exactly the same as every other New York City public high school teacher with the same number of years of service.



Higher IQ opens up the possibility of more career tracks because the person with a higher IQ qualifies for better educational opportunities. But, perhaps more often than not, the 18-year-old chooses a career track that’s not optimal for making money. For example, the 18-year-old who is smart enough to get onboard the BIGLAW track may instead opt into the teaching track and wind up being a modestly paid schoolteacher for the rest of his life. (But I should add here that the average schoolteacher certainly has higher total compensation per hour than the average non-college graduate—it’s not a horrible career choice at all for the student who isn’t capable of handling a more intellectually demanding college major.)



I previously theorized that higher IQ students are at higher risk for selecting interesting sounding but economically unrewarding majors. Lower IQ students tend to seek more practical majors that lead to jobs because they aren’t interested in the learning part of the college experience anyway.
IQ is more helpful for getting a degree than it is for getting the crucial first job after graduating. Colleges look at an IQ test (the SAT) as one of the criteria for admission. (But leadership (http://www.halfsigma.com/2005/05/advice_for_gett.html) is just as important, and lack of leadership can prevent high IQ young people from getting into degree programs they are otherwise perfectly intellectually qualified for.)
Employers don’t look at IQ tests when making hiring decisions. Sometimes they look at grade point averages which are weakly correlated with IQ. I once recall reading about a study which found that tall male college seniors received, on average, more job offers than male seniors with high GPAs. This is consistent with my own findings that men who are unathletic (http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/07/unathletic_men_.html) or short earn less money.



Once a person is admitted to a career track, it’s not clear that high IQ provides much additional benefit. In most career tracks compensation is more related to years of experience and not actual competency on the job. IQ may have little to do with promotions. The guy who gets along better with the person making the promotion decision is the one who will most likely be promoted. Higher IQ people may be less likely to get along well with their bosses because they are unable to hide how stupid they think their bosses are.



Being a mid-level manager doesn’t seem any more intellectually demanding than being a bottom level worker. I’m sure a person whose IQ is just average for his profession can get several promotions before his merely average IQ becomes a handicap, if it ever does. (I believe that eventually a person with a good personality but only average IQ will be promoted to a position where his merely average IQ causes him to make bad decisions which harm the company. This is the Peter Principle in action.)


http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/08/index.html

[Dean]

So you are a social darwinist.

:shrugs: Richard Feyman had an IQ of 124. That is pretty low because the iq of a genius is atleast 140. He was certainly smarter than you and any other joker who claims that visualizing all sides of a cube is a mark of intelligence. he was miles ahead half of the chumps who get above 160 in these tests

IQ124 is actually considered quite intelligent. It is roughly within the top 5% of the population.

[Guerrilla22]

Quite possibly the worse argument ever made, economic status is linked to intelligence. The article simply linked IQ to genetics,now you're trying to equate IQ to economic status, without offering any evidence to back up your conclusions. I guess you must be impoverished because you don't seem very bright.

[EvigLidelse]

Agreed on "JohnnyDarko" and his brilliant arguments.

[Wake Up]

Equality is about giving EVERYBODY the same chance in life. It is then up to EVERYBODY to make the most of their abilities from a level playing field. (Without exploiting others of course)
But no, right wingers like the OP seem to think that it is acceptable to play a game of survival of the fittest because of some bogus genetical argument.

We can argue all day about the genetic make up of IQ when really it doesn't matter one jot. Even if you conclusively proved to me using multiple peer reviewed sources etc, I would still not want the cleverer people to be allowed a head start.

[Dr Mindbender]

There's one detail that the OP has completely overlooked. A considerable amount of successful and priveleged people are incredibly stupid. Take Paris Hilton, George Bush or even the English Royal family. Between them they wouldnt have the brains to discern a hypotenuse from a hypothesis yet somehow they still have more spare cash than you or I.

[Robert]

What do you guys consider a manifestation of intelligence anyway, if not a test? For me, it includes things like designing and building a rocket that can fly a man to the moon, set him down on the surface, and return him safely to Earth.

If you agree that it takes "intelligence" to do this, can we agree that the chief scientists and Flight Engineers at NASA and the Russian Federal Space Agency tend to do better, if ever so slightly (!), on IQ tests than any of us here do? If you don't agree, well, go try to build a rocket and get back with me.

As to the original poster, what is this thread supposed to do? Convince us that the poor are genetically unintelligent, that this is the cause of their poverty, and that they therefore can't hope to work their way out of it? This is an argument for socialism, not against it. Capitalist Lawyer, aren't you the guy who said he was really a communist?

[Dr Mindbender]

What do you guys consider a manifestation of intelligence anyway, if not a test? For me, it includes things like designing and building a rocket that can fly a man to the moon, set him down on the surface, and return him safely to Earth.

If you agree that it takes "intelligence" to do this, can we agree that the chief scientists and Flight Engineers at NASA and the Russian Federal Space Agency tend to do better, if ever so slightly (!), on IQ tests than any of us here do? If you don't agree, well, go try to build a rocket and get back with me.

As to the original poster, what is this thread supposed to do? Convince us that the poor are genetically unintelligent, that this is the cause of their poverty, and that they therefore can't hope to work their way out of it? This is an argument for socialism, not against it. Capitalist Lawyer, aren't you the guy who said he was really a communist?

i think one of the earlier posters hit the nail on the head when he said that intelligence isnt static; it changes throughout one's lifetime- some days the brain works better than others. Why not? The same can be said for other parts of the body.

[Raúl Duke]

Personally...if they want to better test the whole "nature vs nurture" stuff they should take 2 indentical twins and put them in very different social environments.

[black magick hustla]

IQ124 is actually considered quite intelligent. It is roughly within the top 5% of the population.

Yeah, but this guy was making his own symbology for partial derivatives when he was 15.

Its above average, but top 5 percent is way below the likes of Feyman. By IQ standards he wasnt a genius.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Dean http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1248545#post1248545)
IQ124 is actually considered quite intelligent. It is roughly within the top 5% of the population.




Hey Deano, see below; next time I see Bush I'll tell him what you said. He might send you a nice autographed picture of himself.:drool:

IQ Hoaxes and Rumors of Stupidity Debunked

All indicators exclude President George Bush from being a total nitwit. He is very intelligent as his IQ to SAT Scores indicate. His combined SAT score of 1206 indicates that he has an estimated IQ Score of 125 which is well above average intelligence.

http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous-people.html

[Pawn Power]

Class society cannot be abolished and our schools cannot be fixed until we acknowledge basic facts of biology and take them into account when designing educational programs or how social classes are formed.

Low IQ is a strong predictor of poverty. High IQ is only a weak predictor of economic success. The reason we have poverty isn't because of capitalist exploitation, but rather because of inherent biological differences; something that the leftists fail to recognize and acknowledge as truth.


Not this old chestnut again.

It is somewhat pathetic that a "scientific" basis must be found to legitimize poverty in capitalism. Why can't it just be that some are winners and some are losers? Or that, eventually, in some sort of utopian unregulated market, things will work out? Have some backbone in your convictions!

There is no conclusive evidence that IQ is linked to genetics and it is not for lack of research. First off, IQ tests have been legitimately contested as culturally specific, that is, as favor individuals with certain life experiences.

Moreover, it is known that environmental factors do have an impact on intelligence (however that is measured). This is an simply observation and easily proved. Simply take your hypothetical genetically-based brilliant infant and have them be raised as a feral child. They would not even have the ability to acquire language once an adult no less take an IQ test.

There are so many variables when looking at something as complex and abstract as intelligence. Moreover, there are many genetic traits that are dependent upon environment. That is, they have the potential to be expressed. Certainly, factors like access to nutritious food and exposure to stresses play a role in development. We know this is the case with phenotypes like like hight. Is is likely that other factors are significant as well like education, etc.

Nevertheless, intelligence is difficulty to measure and contemporary geneticist have not demonstrated that there is a obvious genetic component. Or that that a genetic component would be the most important factor in determining intelligence.

When it comes down to it, retreating from one's political convictions behind supposed "science" shows either some attempt moral reconciliation or flawed ideas. I am guessing that there is a bit of both.

However, in light of the president's recent comments in the regards to the economy, "Democratic Capitalism is still the best system we have," I think that capitalism is coming under question. People are starting to realize that this economic system is not fair and that it doesn't serve most people. President Bush found it necessary to remind everyone that this is all we got. Though, appears that many people are questioning this assumption. Let's hope it continues!

[JazzRemington]

What do you guys consider a manifestation of intelligence anyway, if not a test? For me, it includes things like designing and building a rocket that can fly a man to the moon, set him down on the surface, and return him safely to Earth.

"Intelligence" tends to be more subjective than objective. The fact that someone can make a rocket does make him intelligent but what if he's doesn't know anything about the history of video games? Would that make him not intelligent? Why should we use whether or not one can build a rocket as a standard for judging intelligence and not, say, knowing a lot about video games? Not even psychologists can figure out a good definition of "intelligence."

But as for whether IQ is genetic or not, the majority of the research by psychologists suggests that IQ is affected by a wide variety of things and rarely is primarily one thing. Sure, you can have a gene that will grant you a high IQ but what if you don't have the resources to exploit that gene so that you'll get a high IQ? I recall a study last year that showed a particular gene found in breast milk contributes to a high IQ in infants who are breastfed but since the study also said that the majority of the population studied had this gene, would that mean those kids will grow up with high IQs?

Ignoring whether or not IQ is even a valid measure, of course.

[Robert]

The fact that someone can make a rocket does make him intelligent but what if he's doesn't know anything about the history of video games? Would that make him not intelligent?


No, it would make him ignorant or unschooled in that area.


Why should we use whether or not one can build a rocket as a standard for judging intelligence and not, say, knowing a lot about video games?

Obviously it's not the only kind of intelligence, but my guess is that your average rocket scientist can learn video games faster than your average video gamer can learn rocket science. Now, if you mean designers of video games, I imagine that some of them are geniuses, sure. And I'd bet that they score high on IQ tests.

[JazzRemington]

No, it would make him ignorant or unschooled in that area.

Semantics, though you appear to be getting it.


Obviously it's not the only kind of intelligence, but my guess is that your average rocket scientist can learn video games faster than your average video gamer can learn rocket science. Now, if you mean designers of video games, I imagine that some of them are geniuses, sure. And I'd bet that they score high on IQ tests.

Knowledge of one area doesn't transfer over into another area, especially if it's not related in any way. Having Ph.D. level knowledge of algebra doesn't mean you'll be that good at calculus.

But why do you keep insisting that IQ tests are valid measures of general intelligence? Certainly it can predict success in school (as was the original purpose, if I can recall correctly) but how do we even know that IQ is the independent variable and not an intervening variable?

But like I said, if even psychologists cannot get a good idea of what constitutes intelligence, then what use is something that's used to measure it?

[Rascolnikova]

I don't understand why this debate hasn't gotten around to the essential cultural issues.

My argument is: It's not stupidity that creates poverty. Capitalism creates subgroups of the impoverished, isolates them, and encourages certain cultural characteristics. Those characteristics, in defense of capitalism, have subsequently been labeled as low intelligence.

I'm not arguing that it's illegitimate to have a concept of intelligence by which we measure and/or judge people--only that the concept of intelligence we have now is a circular justification created by and for the system we should be fighting.

[Robert]

Having Ph.D. level knowledge of algebra doesn't mean you'll be that good at calculus.I doubt that. Algebra is a building block of calculus. I'll grant you that there are different kinds of intelligence if that's what you mean. I have a friend who is a brilliant lawyer, but he is so bad at Spanish and at music, after years of trying, that it is quite astounding.


though you appear to be getting it.Oh, lordy! :lol:


But why do you keep insisting that IQ tests are valid measures of general intelligence?
Because they are. Of course they aren't the exclusive gauges of intelligence, if that's what's agitating you. Generally speaking, literate people whom I call "intelligent" score highly on IQ tests. There are illiterate woodsmen, sure, who adapt quickly to rapidly changing natural conditions in the forest in order to survive. There are brilliant, intuitive mechanics that never finished high school. Those are kinds of intelligence I'm happy to recognize.

I don't know why you are all so touchy about this IQ business, though Rascolnikova's point is interesting. Even after the revolution, you will have a select, elite group of people allowed to study physics, comparative anatomy, organic chemistry, and engineering in the top universities, assuming you don't burn them all down. Those who get in will be tested on their intelligence as well as their knowledge. Components of that test will bear much similarity to an IQ test. Get over it.

[Rascolnikova]

Actually,

a) I'd like to think that after the revolution our universities will be substantially restructured, so that at the learning level, anyone who wants to put their time in is so allowed. The more resource-intensive advanced researchers could be selected in any of a variety of ways.

and

b) while basic algebra is a building block of calculus, the advanced versions (including a PhD level and above, and even some below) of the two disciplines are quite different, and not cumulative.

[Robert]

Okay, Rasco. Very good. If the rest of you commies could debate like Rasco, you'd make more converts.

Rasco, you da man!

I think.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

i guess smart people can be lazy and stupid people can be ambitious.

Just comes to show that even a stupid person can become rich.
Which brings up an interesting question: What exactly is the human quality that capitalism supposedly rewards with wealth?

Surely, in a fair and just society, wealth should be a reward for some positive quality, no? So, um, what exactly are the kinds of qualities that capitalism rewards? Let's see - luck, greed, selfishness, ambition... damn, not very positive, are they?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Ambition is positive.

[Bud Struggle]

Which brings up an interesting question: What exactly is the human quality that capitalism supposedly rewards with wealth?

Surely, in a fair and just society, wealth should be a reward for some positive quality, no? So, um, what exactly are the kinds of qualities that capitalism rewards? Let's see - luck, greed, selfishness, ambition... damn, not very positive, are they?

Luck is good!

Smart yea, but clever is better. A charming personality never hurts and hard work.

Easy. :lol:

[Edit] Actually--something else. NEVER be the first to do anything. If you have an innovative idea bury it. Wait till someone else does something brilliant and then copy him. It's better to be Wendy's than McDonald's. Just as much money and a lot less risk.

[Ratatosk]

My argument is: It's not stupidity that creates poverty. Capitalism creates subgroups of the impoverished, isolates them, and encourages certain cultural characteristics. Those characteristics, in defense of capitalism, have subsequently been labeled as low intelligence.

I'm not arguing that it's illegitimate to have a concept of intelligence by which we measure and/or judge people--only that the concept of intelligence we have now is a circular justification created by and for the system we should be fighting.I don't know about that. Being poor is not normally considered to automatically entail a lack of intelligence - otherwise, it would be kinda vacuous to make claims like that low intelligence is a predictor of poverty. There are lots of people who are normally considered to be intelligent but who certainly don't thrive in a capitalist economy. That some people would like to believe in some kind of connection between intelligence and poverty is another matter.

[Robert]

Let's see - luck, greed, selfishness, ambition... damn, not very positive, are they?

Well, none of those are virtues except, in some cases, ambition. There is blind ambition and evil ambition, sure, but students who want to become physicians and inventors are also ambitious, and it's healthy for them and for us. They are smarter and work longer and harder than barbers and nail technicians. I have no with the fact that Bill Gates founded Microsoft in his garage, that you buy his products, and that he is -- presumably -- wealthier than you are. I

Nor do I have a problem with surgeons who perform life saving operations on a regular basis driving a new Ferrari on the weekend and eating better than I do. Not every oppressed wage slave is capable of performing successful bypass or brain surgery, nor could everyone learn to do it if given enough free training.

[Rascolnikova]

I don't know about that. Being poor is not normally considered to automatically entail a lack of intelligence - otherwise, it would be kinda vacuous to make claims like that low intelligence is a predictor of poverty. There are lots of people who are normally considered to be intelligent but who certainly don't thrive in a capitalist economy. That some people would like to believe in some kind of connection between intelligence and poverty is another matter.

Outliers don't disprove a trend--and by outlier, I mean you, not smart poor people.

I live in one of the most neo-con intensive places in the world, and I know that here there are a lot of people--not very reflective people, but still--who genuinely believe that wealth, under capitalism, is obtainable via intelligence and hard work. This view is a deeply rooted historical one, particularly as seen in the language of vagrancy laws in the US and Britain around the time of the industrial revolution.

Perhaps more relevant is the historical development of IQ tests, and the closely related history of eugenics. This is what makes the argument in The Bell Curve scandalous instead of vacuous; since eugenics became associated with Nazis around world war two, admitting this underlaying assumption in with such vigor and detail gets a substantial backlash.

[Rascolnikova]

I certainly have never met a stupid engineer or a CPA.

I know some stupid engineers. Just because you don't understand what they're doing doesn't mean they're doing it well.

[black magick hustla]

What do you guys consider a manifestation of intelligence anyway, if not a test? For me, it includes things like designing and building a rocket that can fly a man to the moon, set him down on the surface, and return him safely to Earth.

If you agree that it takes "intelligence" to do this, can we agree that the chief scientists and Flight Engineers at NASA and the Russian Federal Space Agency tend to do better, if ever so slightly (!), on IQ tests than any of us here do? If you don't agree, well, go try to build a rocket and get back with me.

As to the original poster, what is this thread supposed to do? Convince us that the poor are genetically unintelligent, that this is the cause of their poverty, and that they therefore can't hope to work their way out of it? This is an argument for socialism, not against it. Capitalist Lawyer, aren't you the guy who said he was really a communist?

They do better in IQ tests because they do mind puzzles for a living. That is, they have a shitload of practice doing that.

[Bud Struggle]

They do better in IQ tests because they do mind puzzles for a living. That is, they have a shitload of practice doing that.

And your're saying RevLeft isn't a mind puzzle? :lol:

[Ratatosk]

Outliers don't disprove a trend--and by outlier, I mean you, not smart poor people.

I live in one of the most neo-con intensive places in the world, and I know that here there are a lot of people--not very reflective people, but still--who genuinely believe that wealth, under capitalism, is obtainable via intelligence and hard work. This view is a deeply rooted historical one, particularly as seen in the language of vagrancy laws in the US and Britain around the time of the industrial revolution.Hm, still I think this is a belief that some people (maybe lots of people) have, not a part of our concept of intelligence. But you're right that there is a largely artificial link between intelligence and wealth that's being reinforced by capitalism.

[JazzRemington]

I doubt that. Algebra is a building block of calculus. I'll grant you that there are different kinds of intelligence if that's what you mean. I have a friend who is a brilliant lawyer, but he is so bad at Spanish and at music, after years of trying, that it is quite astounding.

Did I say he would be incapable of learning something else by becoming an expert in one field? Your friend doesn't matter, and I would thank you not to waste my time with personal observations. As I've said before, research into skill acquisition and transfer suggests that there is no positive transfer between learning two skills that aren't alike. Your one friend doesn't convince me that all this research is wrong.


Because they are.

:laugh: If you say so...


I don't know why you are all so touchy about this IQ business, though Rascolnikova's point is interesting. Even after the revolution, you will have a select, elite group of people allowed to study physics, comparative anatomy, organic chemistry, and engineering in the top universities, assuming you don't burn them all down. Those who get in will be tested on their intelligence as well as their knowledge. Components of that test will bear much similarity to an IQ test. Get over it.

Well, isn't this one giant straw man.

[Robert]

I would thank you not to waste my time with personal observations.Oh, if you have time to spend here pretending IQ tests don't measure anything, I'd say you've got time to burn. Wouldn't you? :laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

Oh, if you have time to jerk off here pretending insisting IQ tests don't mean anything, you've got time to burn. :laugh:

And that the SAT, PSAT or the ACT test's don't count either.

Party On!

You Commies.

Trust me--they'll count more AFTER the freakin Revolution.:lol:

They certainly did in the China that is commonly known as "Communist!" ;)

[Rascolnikova]

Hm, still I think this is a belief that some people (maybe lots of people) have, not a part of our concept of intelligence. But you're right that there is a largely artificial link between intelligence and wealth that's being reinforced by capitalism.

I'd agree that capitalism hasn't entirely co-opted everyone's common-sense understanding of what intelligence is.

However, all of the formalized notions of intelligence in common usage (which I can think of) have deep historical ties to capitalism, and in some important cases (especially IQ) to eugenics as well.

For example, until recently IQ tests abounded with problems that required class specific information to solve--the simplest and most obvious example being vocabulary questions about expensive (and culture-of-wealth-specific) sporting equipment. This has been extensively documented.

In cultures of generational poverty, there's little incentive to develop a strong sense of chronology or to learn to use formal registers of speech. So--modern IQ tests, which tend to have a section dedicated to chronological sequencing, and in which all questions are given in formal register. . do they define the poor as stupid? I'm going to say yes.

[Ken]

im on the margins because i lack simple obedience.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Which brings up an interesting question: What exactly is the human quality that capitalism supposedly rewards with wealth?

Surely, in a fair and just society, wealth should be a reward for some positive quality, no? So, um, what exactly are the kinds of qualities that capitalism rewards? Let's see - luck, greed, selfishness, ambition... damn, not very positive, are they?

This virtues aren't positive virtues to a person who considers human sacrifice as good.

You forgot competence, self esteem, motivation and reason.

What abotu your system? Who gets rewarded the most? The weak, the needy, the disable, and the unsuccessful. Who gets punished? The successful, the strong and the able.

From each according to their abilities to each according to his needs. the more ability you have the more you get punish, the more needy you are the more you get rewarded.

[Rascolnikova]

This virtues aren't positive virtues to a person who considers human sacrifice as good.

You forgot competence, self esteem, motivation and reason.

What abotu your system? Who gets rewarded the most? The weak, the needy, the disable, and the unsuccessful. Who gets punished? The successful, the strong and the able.

From each according to their abilities to each according to his needs. the more ability you have the more you get punish, the more needy you are the more you get rewarded.

I don't know what system you're talking about. In the system I'm seeking, power is distributed evenly enough that

a) Success is actually an indication of qualities like hard work and insight, rather than an indication of having been born into a culture that gives you the education, health, and material goods to take part in the competition.

It would be so nice if we could actually respect the people in charge of things--which we likely would, if they were constantly accountable to the people and if they obtained their position from a relatively fair starting point. In this way we might get actually competent people to be in charge. . . which I hope even you realize would be of benefit to everybody.

b) Decisions about the care of those who are truly unable or unwilling to contribute in material ways can be made on a much more human level, in groups ranging from maybe 150-1000. Those groups may decide to let their less "productive" members starve, but at least they will be making the choices rather than having all matters of public policy serve a very small percent of the population, which is the system we have now.

Edit for a key point I forgot: There are better ways to reward people than giving them massive and disproportionate material wealth.

[Gleb]

What abotu your system? Who gets rewarded the most? The weak, the needy, the disable, and the unsuccessful. Who gets punished? The successful, the strong and the able.


I honestly suggest reading something else than Black Book of Communism and Aynd Rand when it comes to communism. Let me quote some Lenin, for example: "After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it."

Most important Marxists agree on that; in post-revolutionary society, goods will still be distributed according to one's contribution to the society. And the difficult question comes here: who contributes more to the society: the succesful ones, the strong ones or those who are weak and unsuccesful? I think even a chimp could answer that one. Of course, needs of the disabled ones will be fulfilled; to be disable means one can't contribute to the society no matter is one willing to do so, and thus it would be unfair to leave them without support from surrounding society.


From each according to their abilities to each according to his needs. the more ability you have the more you get punish, the more needy you are the more you get rewarded.

From each according to their abilities, to each according to his needs. That's second phase of Marxist society, whereas one I already described is the first. Well, all communists, like myself, don't agree on policy like this, but I'll explain it to you anyways. At first I'd like to ask where you got this punishment thing?
If there's someone this kind of system is punishing, it's those who are not contributing to the society according to their abilities, as resources are not given to them according to their needs. It's not like giving easy rides to lazy people willing to leech resources from the surrounding society! (While of course, as previously, the disabled and actually weak ones will be taken care of as socialism darwinism really isn't among the leftist ideals)

But as said, it's silly to bunch all communist like that to same pile; there is lots of commies not supporting idea of distribution according to needs and willing to stick with distribution according to contribution.

Anyways, it would be appreciated if you spent more time browsing around the forums, outside the OI, in order to see what kind of people really are and what kind of views we have on the society. I can honestly see your views on what we think are influenced more by the right, not by the left, and thus you might have a bit distorted views when it comes to modern leftist movements. I mean, we are not boogie men, we don't bite you and we won't shoot you if the revolution comes! (Well, expect for those Stalinist tankies ;P)

[Ratatosk]

I'd agree that capitalism hasn't entirely co-opted everyone's common-sense understanding of what intelligence is.

However, all of the formalized notions of intelligence in common usage (which I can think of) have deep historical ties to capitalism, and in some important cases (especially IQ) to eugenics as well.Yeah, I agree with some slightly weakened form of the original claim, I just thought that claiming complete circularity was a bit too much. Good point about the I.Q. tests.

[Rascolnikova]

Yeah, I agree with some slightly weakened form of the original claim, I just thought that claiming complete circularity was a bit too much. Good point about the I.Q. tests.

I think in the context of this argument circularity is very close to complete; after all, the original post gave no credence to common-sense notions of intelligence such as are often found among the poor. Like most claims of the kind, it relied solely on the formalized. . . and I hate to keep harping on this, but in historical perspective, that's a horribly ad hoc tool.

[Sendo]

In my AP psychology class we covered intelligence...

Basically, while genes may play a factor...
The strongest factors for intelligence are environmental/social.

Even then we also covered how difficult it is to test for intelligence because we are unable to come with a universal definition (there's like 3 theories of intelligence, maybe more) and also there are cultural biases on intelligence tests.

Seriously, when it comes to science, you can't really believe everything a popular magazine (much less a general one) says. Most likely this article has a pro-evolutionary psychologist bent and fails to address the controversy and valid criticism the evo psychologists face from other psychologists. (plus other stuff like the "intelligence definition debate"). Also, the study doesn't seem to address what happened after the initial brain scan. Did they place the twins into 2 different environments and they still both had similar IQ levels at the age of 10, 15, and 20 (etc)? (Because you need to do this to validate that hypothesis).


My lefty chum from college said that all the research psychologists did and he himself did in classes and internships always said the same thing: "Genetics may play a factor, but social and environmental factors trump genetics."

He said that so many important studies just sit in filing cabinets because the only thing you can do with the information in them is say "This evidence we need to get rid of poverty."

[Red Anarchist of Love]

that's bull shit. sounds like the sientis that worked for hitler are still around. another way to sientifical prove raceism

[Rascolnikova]

I.Q. scores and measuring intelligence have long been controversial. Brain-imaging studies by Dr. Thompson and the study group have advanced the field by identifying physical features of the brain that correlate with I.Q.
In 2001, Dr. Thompson reported that based on imaging twins' brains the volume of gray matter in the frontal lobes and other areas correlated with I.Q. and was heavily influenced by genetics.

"The I.Q. was tested when the children entered the program. Further tests were not needed because I.Q.'s are so stable, Dr. Rapoport said."Class society cannot be abolished and our schools cannot be fixed until we acknowledge basic facts of biology and take them into account when designing educational programs or how social classes are formed.

Low IQ is a strong predictor of poverty. High IQ is only a weak predictor of economic success. The reason we have poverty isn't because of capitalist exploitation, but rather because of inherent biological differences; something that the leftists fail to recognize and acknowledge as truth.


Even epsilons are useful, he says. . .