Who Will Stop The Balkanization?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Kon-Lee - One could reasonably make that assumption. It wouldn't help them, however, as brain size is not, in fact, a proper indicator of intelligence.

Further, IQ - since it has been used in several threads to justify what smacks to me as racially biased opinion - mostly only measures (and unreliably at that) one type of intelligence (the word "intelligence" itself is a blanket term, and IQ tests attempt to measure, in the Gardner model, "logical intelligence" and, to a much lesser degree, "linguistic intelligence"; in the Sternberg model, it only measures "analytical intelligence").

i'm sure there's not a perfect correlation b/w brain size and and intelligence...i am unsure if there is any relation at all. as you say even measuring intelligence is tricky, and as i understand the IQ test is outdated culturally biased and not the end-all be-all. the science alone on both sides is very tricky, and then when you add the powderkeg component to it and scientists on both sides with agendas the waters get even more murkey.

having said that i do enjoy reading both of your opinions on the matter.....

Conley, Kom Lee, Conlevy etc., IQ and other tests aren't culturally biased or outdated. That is a time honored excuse for constant and utterly consistent Black failure. Moreover, social scientists have been arguing this crap for decades and while they slant tests to favor Blacks (you know, to be fair  ) they are still consistently outperformed by Whites and Asians. Enough!

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

I might also add that group differences break down on the individual level. While there does exist a significant average IQ gap between Blacks and Whites there are certainly Black men with IQs higher than my own. I am not suggesting that Africans are a race of morons.

[conleys ghost]

Kon-Lee - One could reasonably make that assumption. It wouldn't help them, however, as brain size is not, in fact, a proper indicator of intelligence.

Further, IQ - since it has been used in several threads to justify what smacks to me as racially biased opinion - mostly only measures (and unreliably at that) one type of intelligence (the word "intelligence" itself is a blanket term, and IQ tests attempt to measure, in the Gardner model, "logical intelligence" and, to a much lesser degree, "linguistic intelligence"; in the Sternberg model, it only measures "analytical intelligence").

i'm sure there's not a perfect correlation b/w brain size and and intelligence...i am unsure if there is any relation at all. as you say even measuring intelligence is tricky, and as i understand the IQ test is outdated culturally biased and not the end-all be-all. the science alone on both sides is very tricky, and then when you add the powderkeg component to it and scientists on both sides with agendas the waters get even more murkey.

having said that i do enjoy reading both of your opinions on the matter.....

Conley, Kom Lee, Conlevy etc., IQ and other tests aren't culturally biased or outdated.

realistically, how can this ever be proven one way or another? i think the problem is that there are limits to what can be proven with science. seriously...how can you prove someone is more intelligent than another? if sdml can listen to a song he's never heard before, and then play it back does that make him more or less intelligent than someone who can figure out the square root of 13432546 in their head? i mean it's interesting to discuss -- fascinating even -- but no one is ever going to prove anything related to this. the science is built on initial assumptions. if you take care to qualify the result by narrowing it down to exactly what you have tested for and proven, you can make some progress. but to say things like x race is smarter than y race to me just seems pointless.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Kon-Lee - One could reasonably make that assumption. It wouldn't help them, however, as brain size is not, in fact, a proper indicator of intelligence.

Further, IQ - since it has been used in several threads to justify what smacks to me as racially biased opinion - mostly only measures (and unreliably at that) one type of intelligence (the word "intelligence" itself is a blanket term, and IQ tests attempt to measure, in the Gardner model, "logical intelligence" and, to a much lesser degree, "linguistic intelligence"; in the Sternberg model, it only measures "analytical intelligence").

i'm sure there's not a perfect correlation b/w brain size and and intelligence...i am unsure if there is any relation at all. as you say even measuring intelligence is tricky, and as i understand the IQ test is outdated culturally biased and not the end-all be-all. the science alone on both sides is very tricky, and then when you add the powderkeg component to it and scientists on both sides with agendas the waters get even more murkey.

having said that i do enjoy reading both of your opinions on the matter.....

Conley, Kom Lee, Conlevy etc., IQ and other tests aren't culturally biased or outdated.

realistically, how can this ever be proven one way or another? i think the problem is that there are limits to what can be proven with science. seriously...how can you prove someone is more intelligent than another? if sdml can listen to a song he's never heard before, and then play it back does that make him more or less intelligent than someone who can figure out the square root of 13432546 in their head? i mean it's interesting to discuss -- fascinating even -- but no one is ever going to prove anything related to this. the science is built on initial assumptions. if you take care to qualify the result by narrowing it down to exactly what you have tested for and proven, you can make some progress. but to say things like x race is smarter than y race to me just seems pointless.

Pointless? I don't think any of this is pointless including SDML's objections. I dare say it helps explain the world we live. That is what science is for. Frankly, I think SDML is motivated more by ethical and moral considerations (just my opinion) than anything else and this makes me reexamine my postion and its implications.

[conleys ghost]

i shouldnt have said pointless...it is interesting and fun to debate...i guess a better word would be fruitless? because when you begin by accepting 'intelligence' means different things to different people it becomes impossible to prove.

to be clear, is your assertion "whites are more intelligent than blacks", "whites score better on IQ tests than blacks", or option 3 -- that both option 1 and option 2 mean exactly the same to you?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

i shouldnt have said pointless...it is interesting and fun to debate...i guess a better word would be fruitless? because when you begin by accepting 'intelligence' means different things to different people it becomes impossible to prove.

to be clear, is your assertion "whites are more intelligent than blacks", "whites score better on IQ tests than blacks", or option 3 -- that both option 1 and option 2 mean exactly the same to you?

I guess the closest would be Option 3. I am thinking in terms of economic success (personal and national), standard of living and things like that. I thnk there is a correlation between IQ and success. I am being less than precise here and SDML is right in that regard. I don't disagree with his statements regarding multiple intelligences(?).

Then again, intelligence is but one of many traits that vary across racial lines. This tends to be the most sensitive though. No one waxes indignant when one suggests that Black men jump high and run fast. 

Undoubtedly, Blacks dominate sports in the US but we don't talk about it. It's taboo.

[Peter1469]

Intelligence does not necessarily have to correlate with economic success.  A person of modest intelligence can learn a trade and make plenty of money.  Plumbers in a major city like the DC metro area can earn plenty- and not have crippling student loans to pay off. 

Many people of slightly above average intelligence will go to college, have a butt-load of student loans and find that it is hard to get a decent paying job and hard to compete once they have those jobs.  There was a news article about those with IQs between 100-120 who go to college being put into the position of being crushed by student loan debt for 20 or more years. 

The point is that people need to realize their abilities and focus on achievement that is possible with that level of ability.  Now I do agree with Mr. D, that at the national / cultural level, a low average IQ is indeed an impediment to national or cultural success.  However, even the more dim populations have their bright lights.  I believe that it comes down to cultural values more than average intelligence.  Hard work and strong morals can make up for the intelligence shortfalls- at least for purposes of modest success. 

[Vermouth]

I agree with Peter on the practical application to success.

Then again, intelligence is but one of many traits that vary across racial lines. This tends to be the most sensitive though. No one waxes indignant when one suggests that Black men jump high and run fast. 

I believe intelligence is the most sensitive simply because, as has been noted, it is most challenging to assess. Physical differences are easily and accurately measured.

[SDML]

I agree with Peter on the practical application to success.

Then again, intelligence is but one of many traits that vary across racial lines. This tends to be the most sensitive though. No one waxes indignant when one suggests that Black men jump high and run fast. 

I believe intelligence is the most sensitive simply because, as has been noted, it is most challenging to assess. Physical differences are easily and accurately measured.

In Gardner's model, there are 7 kinds of intelligence.

Logical-mathematical
Linguistic
Spacial
Kinesthetic
Musical
Inter-personal
Intra-personal

Within that framework, sports stars, dancers, Britney Spears, and rodeo clowns are all much "smarter" than mathematicians, politicians, rocket scientists, and psychologists who devise models for intelligence when it comes to physical demands (kinesthetic intelligence). Your interior decorator can probably solve a Rubic's Cube faster than Einstein (spacial vs logical intel). Politicians possess a high degree of mastery in inter-personal intel, but their psychiatrists excel in intra-personal intel.

Obviously, people have more than one kind (like the diplomat who speaks 6 languages, or the dancer who must have equal parts kinesthetic and musical, or Ms. Spears who has to be able to walk & chew gum at the same time).

About a decade ago, he added Naturalistic Intelligence to the model (though this oneis heavily criticized), and is investigating other divisions.

There are other models (some possessing dozens of divisions), but Gardner's is the best so far because it is extremely functional. Functional is that it is a more articulate way to describe the world AND because it can be put to use by, for example, teachers who need better and more varied instructional strategies.

The model is also functional for explaining (in part) the guy of average or below intel (classically speaking, like with an IQ of 90-100) can make $80k annual driving a bull-dozer or a big rig or some other blue collar job, while the guy with the masters degree in music theory or philosophy (with an IQ of 135) has a hard time paying off that $80k of school debt working double shifts delivering your pizza for the Big Game this Sunday.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

I agree with Peter on the practical application to success.

Then again, intelligence is but one of many traits that vary across racial lines. This tends to be the most sensitive though. No one waxes indignant when one suggests that Black men jump high and run fast. 

I believe intelligence is the most sensitive simply because, as has been noted, it is most challenging to assess. Physical differences are easily and accurately measured.

I agree that it is challenging to assess but I think the primary reason why it is the most sensitive is b/c our culture attaches much for value to intellect and we consider it a greater indicator of human worth.

[conleys ghost]

i shouldnt have said pointless...it is interesting and fun to debate...i guess a better word would be fruitless? because when you begin by accepting 'intelligence' means different things to different people it becomes impossible to prove.

to be clear, is your assertion "whites are more intelligent than blacks", "whites score better on IQ tests than blacks", or option 3 -- that both option 1 and option 2 mean exactly the same to you?

I guess the closest would be Option 3. I am thinking in terms of economic success (personal and national), standard of living and things like that. I thnk there is a correlation between IQ and success. I am being less than precise here and SDML is right in that regard. I don't disagree with his statements regarding multiple intelligences(?).

Then again, intelligence is but one of many traits that vary across racial lines. This tends to be the most sensitive though. No one waxes indignant when one suggests that Black men jump high and run fast. 

Undoubtedly, Blacks dominate sports in the US but we don't talk about it. It's taboo.

actually i think people talk about the african american dominance in basketball, boxing, etc all the time. but i'm not convinced that across the board african americans are more athletic than white people. certainly in the small sample size it appears so, but consider growing up in the ghetto and believing (rightly or wrongly) that basketball is your only way out. of course you are going to train harder. the rates of diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, life expectency etc are all much higher for african americans than whites, so i dont think you can say blacks as a whole run faster or jump higher.

if you look at baseball you might think latinos are automatically better at hitting a baseball than whites or especially african americans (fewer and fewer playing every year). in fact if you really want to see a population with exploding out of control weight gain and diabetes then look no farther than the mexican american population.

and if me using the term african-american bothers you feel free to replace with 'black' their interchangeable in my mind ;-)

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

i shouldnt have said pointless...it is interesting and fun to debate...i guess a better word would be fruitless? because when you begin by accepting 'intelligence' means different things to different people it becomes impossible to prove.

to be clear, is your assertion "whites are more intelligent than blacks", "whites score better on IQ tests than blacks", or option 3 -- that both option 1 and option 2 mean exactly the same to you?

I guess the closest would be Option 3. I am thinking in terms of economic success (personal and national), standard of living and things like that. I thnk there is a correlation between IQ and success. I am being less than precise here and SDML is right in that regard. I don't disagree with his statements regarding multiple intelligences(?).

Then again, intelligence is but one of many traits that vary across racial lines. This tends to be the most sensitive though. No one waxes indignant when one suggests that Black men jump high and run fast. 

Undoubtedly, Blacks dominate sports in the US but we don't talk about it. It's taboo.

actually i think people talk about the african american dominance in basketball, boxing, etc all the time. but i'm not convinced that across the board african americans are more athletic than white people. certainly in the small sample size it appears so, but consider growing up in the ghetto and believing (rightly or wrongly) that basketball is your only way out. of course you are going to train harder. the rates of diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, life expectency etc are all much higher for african americans than whites, so i dont think you can say blacks as a whole run faster or jump higher.

if you look at baseball you might think latinos are automatically better at hitting a baseball than whites or especially african americans (fewer and fewer playing every year). in fact if you really want to see a population with exploding out of control weight gain and diabetes then look no farther than the mexican american population.

and if me using the term african-american bothers you feel free to replace with 'black' their interchangeable in my mind ;-)

Can you give me one example of a sportscaster (spelling?) opining that Blacks have genes better suited to athletics? If you provide one please include the date he/she was fired. Trying to get out of the ghetto won't make you a 6' 6" 300 lb. monster. A relatively small American minority dominates American sports. If people are talking about this as often as you say I'd have to laugh. It would be like peeing on some guy's leg and watching him reach for his umbrella. My guess would be that they are all thinking something they would never dare say on television.

It is true that Africans also have greater susceptibility to heart disease and a lower life expectancy but I think that this is partly genetic.

[SDML]

Trying to get out of the ghetto won't make you a 6' 6" 300 lb. monster.

That's why god invented anabolic steroids & HGH.

[conleys ghost]

im not suggesting that growing up in the ghetto makes you 6'6" 300+ (obviously)

im saying that if you live in the ghetto you are more likely to pursue athletics because you perceive that as being the only way out and you've seen peers do it (even if remotely)

there are TONS of 6'6" 300+ white men ya know. both in and out of sports. look at the offensive linemen for any NFL team or college D1 school for that matter and you will see tall obese people. not sure what your point is.

lastly when i said people talk about black dominance in sports all the time i meant people in general, not howard cosell or jimmy the greek or whoever you are defending. i have heard whites and blacks both discuss the issue in a reasonable and intelligent manner. of course if you're like jimmy the greek and say "look at that little monkey run" or whatever it was he said then yes, you're going to get fired. that's life.

[conleys ghost]

Trying to get out of the ghetto won't make you a 6' 6" 300 lb. monster.

That's why god invented anabolic steroids & HGH.

you guys obviously never saw Rocky 4. Ivan Drago was white as the Siberian winter and absolutely RIPPED