From: A. Alexander Beaujean (abeaujean@ureach.com)
Date: Sun Aug 24 2003 - 21:20:07 EDT
> Isn't this more to do with being a persecuted people, and with
parental attitude, rather than the
> population as a whole getting smarter? IQ is not a reliable
indicator of intelligence
IQ, at least as measured by the most common instruments
(Wechsler, Stanford Binet, Raven) are highly reliable for the
majority of the population (95%). They usually have a
reliability around .9 (or above), which make them one of the
best in the social sciences.
IQ and intelligence, of course, are two different concepts: one
a score and the other a latent variable. But as a proxy for
intelligence, IQ does a good job.
John Carroll wrote a book called "Human Cognitive Abilities"
that does a great job showing the difference between general
ability (intelligence) and ability in general (a test score).
; I suggest you
> can score higher on an IQ test if you've had lots of practice
at IQ test type questions -
You can certainly artificially increase a score on certain
subtests, but that does not, ipso facto, raise your IQ.
Moreover, the more "culturally fair" IQ tests tend to be much
less prone to artificial inflation.
if you're
> in a family where your parents are very keen for you to
succeed and continually challenge you with
> word games, puzzles and the like, then you will score higher
on an IQ test because you've had
> practice, rather than any innate superior intelligence.
But the two are highly intertwined. People with high IQs tend to
come from families who have lots of mental activities, but the
mental activities, in and of themselves, do not necessarily
raise one's IQ (otherwise Head Start and similar programs would
be unquestioned, phenomenal successes). 30+ years of modern
behavior genetics has shown genetic variables tend to account
for over 50% of the intelligence variance, and non-shared
environment variables most of the rest. These mental
stimulation activities may artificially raise one's IQ in early
childhood, but they tend to have little effect long-term.
Long-term, those with a higher IQ will purposefully seek out
stimulating environments (e.g., math, science, etc.) that
matches their penchants and abilities, in spite or despite of
what occurred early in their lives.
Such prejudice makes you all the
> more determined to succeed.
>It has nothing IMHO to do with evolution, which is about change
over the
> generations and inheriting traits. It's simply that it's more
important to realise your own
> potential to the fullest extent if you're in a persecuted
minority.
If prejudice = determination to succeed, then most minority
groups in America and the world would have tons of success.
Instead, what you see is that Jews and Asians tend to succeed in
spite of the prejudice, while many other groups do not (this
does not speak for a given individual, but on the average for
groups). Lynn and Vanhanen wrote a book last year called "IQ and
the Wealth of Nations" that shows the IQ distribution across
nations, and it appears that intelligence is the mediating
variable on whether one succeeds in spite of whatever
persecution they encounter.
Not that I 100% agree with them, but Rushton's "Race, evolution,
and behavior" amply shows how evolution and intelligence relate,
as does Levin's "Why Race Matters."
Alex
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
A. Alexander Beaujean
University of Missouri-Columbia
http://www.missouri.edu/~aab2b3
________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 24 2003 - 21:22:32 EDT