> Something equally remarkable about the dogma of equality is that there
> is no evidence to sup****t it. One would search the planet in vain to
> find a single group of blacks that has managed to build an advanced,
> civilized society.
You must have never heard of the Babylonians, the Egyptians, or the
Aztecs.
Learn your history before spouting off such plainly untrue garbage.
> Less subjectively, IQ tests are the best possible way to predict
> whether a student will get good grades or a white-collar worker will
> do a good job. If a test can accurately predict how well someone will
> do at any number of activities that we think of as requiring
> intelligence, it takes a peculiar stubbornness to insist that the test
> is not measuring intelligence.
Even the creator of the IQ test decried the misperception that these tests
measure intelligence. This is not stubbornness, but actual valid
questions
as to the legitimacy of these tests. Scientists have yet to even get
their
minds around what intelligence actually is, nevermind measure it.
Yes, the tests do predict scholarly success, and that has implications in
certain jobs. But they haven't yet been shown to be a good predictor for
general success in life. And it's not that they haven't tried - it's just
clear that the actual qualities required for you to be successful are less
tangible than anything an IQ test can determine.
> Some radical egalitarians talk as if intelligence were wholly a
> product of environment, but this is obviously not true. Mentally
> retarded children usually start life in the same environment as their
> normal siblings, but there is clearly something wrong with them and
> not with their surroundings. Intelligence comes in fine gradations all
> the way from genius to idiot. To admit that idiocy is genetic but to
> claim that every other level of intelligence is due to environment is
> like saying that the heights of dwarfs are governed by genes but that
> the heights of everyone else are governed by environment.
This is a gross misrepresentation of science. Biologists don't consider
any
human trait to be an either/or in terms of nature vs nurture. Genetic
traits can be influenced by the environment, and environmental conditions
can be overcome by genes.
A person with the genes to be tall may yet grow up to be short due to poor
nutrition. To suggest that the environment plays no role in intelligence
is
unscientific hogwash.
And to yammer on as though the evidence on intelligence is clear when it
isn't is pure nonsense. Science does not yet understand human
intelligence,
or the interplay of genes and environment that might affect it. What
evidence we have is highly cir***stantial, and can be interpreted to argue
either way.
Let's not pretend some sort of scientific certainty where none exists.
|
